INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: RageBeoulve on January 22, 2014, 07:35:43 AM
-
If you're really the strong independent women you say you are, then stop whining to the state to get your agenda enforced by law. Stop needing to be told how -beautiful and special- you are for FIVE FUCKING MINUTES at least.
Cm'on girls. If you want to be strong, then fucking do it. If you don't know how, ask someone. Even if its a man like your evil old dad.
-
:clap:
-
Maybe a lot of us girls are already doing it and you just haven't noticed because we don't broadcast it all over the place. :zoinks:
If I called myself a feminist on this place I'd have idiots breathing down my neck about whether I was a social justice responsibility-denying turd. It's starting to sound like a circle jerk. The word has lost its clout. But I believe in equality for all genders, including the ones that aren't defined by penises or vaginas.
-
But I believe in equality for all genders, including the ones that aren't defined by penises or vaginas.
Although I would generally agree, I don't see any point in giving much attention to those who are less than 1% of the population.
Also, "equality" is something that can't really be achieved in a sexually dimorphic species.
-
Maybe a lot of us girls are already doing it and you just haven't noticed because we don't broadcast it all over the place. :zoinks:
If I called myself a feminist on this place I'd have idiots breathing down my neck about whether I was a social justice responsibility-denying turd. It's starting to sound like a circle jerk. The word has lost its clout. But I believe in equality for all genders, including the ones that aren't defined by penises or vaginas.
If you ARE doing that, then you are not a feminist as it is currently in practice. We can be whatever we want, sure; but "feminist" is an inclusive term isn't it?
-
Although I would generally agree, I don't see any point in giving much attention to those who are less than 1% of the population.
That's fucking ironic from someone on the autism spectrum.
-
Although I would generally agree, I don't see any point in giving much attention to those who are less than 1% of the population.
That's fucking ironic from someone on the autism spectrum.
But we're breeding like bunnies these days. :bunny love:
Besides, I don't expect the world to revolve around autistic people.
-
Do you think most things that are 1% of the population shouldn't be taken into account?
-
Do you think most things that are 1% of the population shouldn't be taken into account?
:thumbup:
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth)
-
Do you think most things that are 1% of the population shouldn't be taken into account?
:thumbup:
A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth. Moreover, another study found that the richest 2% own more than half of global household assets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth)
:LOL: :clap:
-
Do you think most things that are 1% of the population shouldn't be taken into account?
No, nor do I think the universe should revolve around them.
-
Although I would generally agree, I don't see any point in giving much attention to those who are less than 1% of the population.
That's fucking ironic from someone on the autism spectrum.
Burn!!!!!!!
-
I think the universe should revolve around a supermassive black hole.
-
I think the universe should revolve around a supermassive black hole.
A supermassive black hole to nowhere, or a supermassive black hole that gives the Christians their evidence of Heaven, Hell and/or Purgatory?
-
Although I would generally agree, I don't see any point in giving much attention to those who are less than 1% of the population.
That's fucking ironic from someone on the autism spectrum.
I owe you karma. I just plussed you, earlier.
-
It's election time here, and there's a feminist party that might get enough votes to sit in the parliament. We also have an extremist right-wing party that is already in it.
It's funny because while a lot of people react against the latter's politics, considering how they spread their racist propaganda at every turn, not all that many speak out against the former's core values. Why is it that it's OK to actively hate half the population but not about 1% of it?
Me, I hate them both. :zoinks:
-
Is the politics in Finland more drama-queen-ish then France's?
-
laymen's translation: drama-queen-ish= too much unnecessary drama
-
I think the universe should revolve around a supermassive black hole.
I'm not comfortable with a revolving universe. What if I get seasick? :tard:
It's election time here, and there's a feminist party that might get enough votes to sit in the parliament. We also have an extremist right-wing party that is already in it.
It's funny because while a lot of people react against the latter's politics, considering how they spread their racist propaganda at every turn, not all that many speak out against the former's core values. Why is it that it's OK to actively hate half the population but not about 1% of it?
Me, I hate them both. :zoinks:
Because the Swedish government actively engages in social engineering? :nerdy:
What I understand of Swedish politics makes it sound odd. You vote for parties, or you can vote for individual representatives, depending on your ballot. :GA:
-
It's election time here, and there's a feminist party that might get enough votes to sit in the parliament. We also have an extremist right-wing party that is already in it.
It's funny because while a lot of people react against the latter's politics, considering how they spread their racist propaganda at every turn, not all that many speak out against the former's core values. Why is it that it's OK to actively hate half the population but not about 1% of it?
Me, I hate them both. :zoinks:
You must join forces with Lit and take over the country :viking:
-
I think the universe should revolve around a supermassive black hole.
I'm not comfortable with a revolving universe. What if I get seasick? :tard:
It's election time here, and there's a feminist party that might get enough votes to sit in the parliament. We also have an extremist right-wing party that is already in it.
It's funny because while a lot of people react against the latter's politics, considering how they spread their racist propaganda at every turn, not all that many speak out against the former's core values. Why is it that it's OK to actively hate half the population but not about 1% of it?
Me, I hate them both. :zoinks:
Because the Swedish government actively engages in social engineering? :nerdy:
What I understand of Swedish politics makes it sound odd. You vote for parties, or you can vote for individual representatives, depending on your ballot. :GA:
Yes. IMHO, it is slightly better than electing representatives that vote for you. :tard:
-
It's election time here, and there's a feminist party that might get enough votes to sit in the parliament. We also have an extremist right-wing party that is already in it.
It's funny because while a lot of people react against the latter's politics, considering how they spread their racist propaganda at every turn, not all that many speak out against the former's core values. Why is it that it's OK to actively hate half the population but not about 1% of it?
Me, I hate them both. :zoinks:
Revolution starts from within. :arrr:
You must join forces with Lit and take over the country :viking:
-
It's election time here, and there's a feminist party that might get enough votes to sit in the parliament. We also have an extremist right-wing party that is already in it.
It's funny because while a lot of people react against the latter's politics, considering how they spread their racist propaganda at every turn, not all that many speak out against the former's core values. Why is it that it's OK to actively hate half the population but not about 1% of it?
Me, I hate them both. :zoinks:
Revolution starts from within. :arrr:
You must join forces with Lit and take over the country :viking:
-
Yes. IMHO, it is slightly better than electing representatives that vote for you. :tard:
Then everything is up to public vote?
-
It's election time here, and there's a feminist party that might get enough votes to sit in the parliament. We also have an extremist right-wing party that is already in it.
It's funny because while a lot of people react against the latter's politics, considering how they spread their racist propaganda at every turn, not all that many speak out against the former's core values. Why is it that it's OK to actively hate half the population but not about 1% of it?
Me, I hate them both. :zoinks:
Revolution starts from within. :arrr:
You must join forces with Lit and take over the country :viking:
-
If you're really the strong independent women you say you are, then stop whining to the state to get your agenda enforced by law. Stop needing to be told how -beautiful and special- you are for FIVE FUCKING MINUTES at least.
Cm'on girls. If you want to be strong, then fucking do it. If you don't know how, ask someone. Even if its a man like your evil old dad.
I don't understand feminist hatred. I think you are refering the minority of women that moans and groans about men - but that is your confusion and not mine, RageBeoulve. I prefer the term gender equalist, but feminism came from a time when a man could beat or rape a woman with impunity (read history).
Why is your misogyny still an issue? Get over it already!
-
I prefer the term gender equalist, but feminism came from a time when a man could beat or rape a woman with impunity (read history).
We are all aware of the feminist false threat narrative (damsel in distress trope). ::)
The reality is is that first wave feminism was a movement of entitlement and privilege being driven by upper class white women who just wanted a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. They were after the choice, high paying jobs like doctors and lawyers. Taking care of their children was left to the dark skinned underclass who toiled in poverty. They didn't want these women to have satisfying, high paying jobs or the right to vote.
-
Nah rape was a reality. So was racism and poverty. I don't see your point.
-
Nah rape was a reality.
It's always been a reality. Awiddershit was trying to claim there was no punishment in western society for rape and that's just not true.
So was racism and poverty. I don't see your point.
1st wave feminism exacerbated racism and poverty because it was mostly rich white women leading the movement. Their ticket to freedom (a prestigious, high paying job) came at the expense of poor, dark skinned women who had to take care of their children for them and do all the chores.
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
-
Nah rape was a reality.
It's always been a reality. Awiddershit was trying to claim there was no punishment in western society for rape and that's just not true.
So was racism and poverty. I don't see your point.
1st wave feminism exacerbated racism and poverty because it was mostly rich white women leading the movement. Their ticket to freedom (a prestigious, high paying job) came at the expense of poor, dark skinned women who had to take care of their children for them and do all the chores.
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
So you're saying that Upper-Class White women do not care about their counterparts in places like Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, etc?
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
So you're saying that Upper-Class White women do not care about their counterparts in places like Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, etc?
Apparently they didn't back then. I am, after all talking about 1st wave feminism. That began like over 100 years ago.
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
So you're saying that Upper-Class White women do not care about their counterparts in places like Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, etc?
Apparently they didn't back then. I am, after all talking about 1st wave feminism. That began like over 100 years ago.
I see....
-
Now here's a feminist I could find some common ground with, Susan Faludi. She makes sense... sometimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Man)
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
Fighting for the right to work in a coal mine equals interests of women in general? :facepalm:
That first wave, as I recall, focussed on voting rights, employment rights, education, etc.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVgXGw_XhRQ& (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVgXGw_XhRQ&)
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
Fighting for the right to work in a coal mine equals interests of women in general? :facepalm:
That first wave, as I recall, focussed on voting rights, employment rights, education, etc.
The first wave was elitist. No doubt about that. Voting rights equal for women and men, but not joining forces with the people wanting to expand voting rights to all men, not only the elite. So, yes first wave was as elitist as the social group of people they were part of.
There was no need to fight for the right to do heavy labour for women though. There were women in factories and mines. Not everywhere, but they were there. And in some places it was no exception at all.
-
It's always been a reality. Awiddershit was trying to claim there was no punishment in western society for rape and that's just not true.
I don't see where she claimed that.
1st wave feminism exacerbated racism and poverty because it was mostly rich white women leading the movement. Their ticket to freedom (a prestigious, high paying job) came at the expense of poor, dark skinned women who had to take care of their children for them and do all the chores.
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Still saying so what? If rich white women were the only ones with enough spare energy to start a movement, that doesn't take from the validity of the movement. Sure, things needed to get better for a whole lot of groups, including male workers who were being exploited in the mines. But in-fighting between oppressed groups is stupid and ineffectual. In fact it's exactly what the people in power hope for. The rats will be so busy scrabbling for the crumbs they won't go after the root of the problem.
There's a difference between trying to help people who still need it, and trying to drag down people who've had some success. I see you doing a whole lot of the latter and not much of the former.
-
It was a poor analogy, but I agree with scrap. The concept of equality is exactly that. Until Feminism and all other social justice movements at present are willing to part with their precious rings of power (exceptions for their demographic) and truly shoot for an egalitarian society with universal principles, I really don't see the point.
Unless that is the goal, social justice is just a bunch of bitching and politicking. Simplification > Complication when it comes to any kind of a system. There is no way out of that. There just isn't.
-
It's always been a reality. Awiddershit was trying to claim there was no punishment in western society for rape and that's just not true.
I don't see where she claimed that.
feminism came from a time when a man could beat or rape a woman with impunity (read history).
-
Sometimes punishments are selectively enforced.
-
Not sure what that implies.
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
My understanding of the definition is otherwise. Though wont claim to know how awiddershinlife intended it, but can understand why scrapheap read it that way.
-
I'm not just talking about punishments here, guys. I'm talking about everything. All rights, all modes of preferable behavior. And Pyraxis is correct. Sometimes punishments are selectively enforced for both men and women depending on the situation. The same goes for white and black, straight and queer, trans and cis, etc etc. Feminism does not address this in any way, and neither does any other social justice movement of our time.
They all CLAIM to, but I can undeniably see them safeguarding little exceptions for themselves everywhere while pointing out the ones others make for themselves. Its just a bunch of childish horseshit, from where I'm standing. If people want equality, they can move for equality. If they want to be a politicking sack of lying shit, ok but I will consistently point it out.
Egalitarianism and universal principles =/= exceptions to the rules.
-
If you're really the strong independent women you say you are, then stop whining to the state to get your agenda enforced by law. Stop needing to be told how -beautiful and special- you are for FIVE FUCKING MINUTES at least.
Cm'on girls. If you want to be strong, then fucking do it. If you don't know how, ask someone. Even if its a man like your evil old dad.
This is exactly the shit that prevents me - and many others - from taking you bunch of haters seriously. So you hate women. Leave us the fuck alone and mind your own business.
Oh, yes - I know you will come up with off the chart spewing of some man-hater to counter act my post. I know you are that desperate to put us down. I don't give those haters any more credence than I give your tears of sexual frustration.
No wonder you can't get laid!
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
Fighting for the right to work in a coal mine equals interests of women in general? :facepalm:
That first wave, as I recall, focussed on voting rights, employment rights, education, etc.
The first wave was elitist. No doubt about that. Voting rights equal for women and men, but not joining forces with the people wanting to expand voting rights to all men, not only the elite. So, yes first wave was as elitist as the social group of people they were part of.
There was no need to fight for the right to do heavy labour for women though. There were women in factories and mines. Not everywhere, but they were there. And in some places it was no exception at all.
OTOH, I think in some societies, married women were not allowed to work outside the home.
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
-
Oh, and...
John Lennon - Woman is The Nigger of The World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS78MX8Zmdk#)
-
I challenge you to find a 1st wave feminist fighting for the right to work in a coal mine or Carnegie Steel Mill. ::)
Apparently none of them did???? Whats the point of challenging?
To show that 1st wave feminism was driven by the privilege and entitlement of upper class white women. They only had their own interests in mind and not the interests of women in general.
Fighting for the right to work in a coal mine equals interests of women in general? :facepalm:
That first wave, as I recall, focussed on voting rights, employment rights, education, etc.
The first wave was elitist. No doubt about that. Voting rights equal for women and men, but not joining forces with the people wanting to expand voting rights to all men, not only the elite. So, yes first wave was as elitist as the social group of people they were part of.
There was no need to fight for the right to do heavy labour for women though. There were women in factories and mines. Not everywhere, but they were there. And in some places it was no exception at all.
OTOH, I think in some societies, married women were not allowed to work outside the home.
IIRC that is a bit later in time, for middle class. Lower class always needed every bit of money they could get, to feed the family.
In my country, till in the seventies of last century, women could get sacked, the moment they got married, especially in government paid positions. As a kid I did not know better that female teachers disappeared from the scene, the moment they tied the knot. It was a way to keep statistics on unemployment rates low.
Of course, exceptions were made, when there was no other staff available. My grandmother was an exception. Not only was she allowed to keep her job at school after marriage, she even taught girls to knit and sew for half a year while being a mother already. Then they found a new teacher, and she was sacked, she was after all married. Her duties were elsewhere.
(She became a small farmer after that, her husband was a carpenter/builder)
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
Modern day western feminists should focus their interests there.
-
I don't know how accurate Mexico by James Michener is. He has mexican women working in the silver(?) mines carrying up the output/waste in baskets. There were fatal falls.
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
Modern day western feminists should focus their interests there.
I'd rather just moan about glass cliffs and complain that my high level corporate job is more precarious than the men. :zoinks:
-
Ceilings. Glass ceilings. Faker. :P
-
Ceilings. Glass ceilings. Faker. :P
If you don't know about the glass cliff, then you've never broken through the ceiling. :hahaha:
You can moan about that instead. Girl Power!! :zoinks:
-
Ceilings. Glass ceilings. Faker. :P
If you don't know about the glass cliff, then you've never broken through the ceiling. :hahaha:
You can moan about that instead. Girl Power!! :zoinks:
:o
-
If you don't know about the glass cliff, then you've never broken through the ceiling. :hahaha:
Wow, you weren't kidding. There is such a concept as a glass cliff. The things you learn.
-
If you're really the strong independent women you say you are, then stop whining to the state to get your agenda enforced by law. Stop needing to be told how -beautiful and special- you are for FIVE FUCKING MINUTES at least.
Cm'on girls. If you want to be strong, then fucking do it. If you don't know how, ask someone. Even if its a man like your evil old dad.
This is exactly the shit that prevents me - and many others - from taking you bunch of haters seriously. So you hate women. Leave us the fuck alone and mind your own business.
Oh, yes - I know you will come up with off the chart spewing of some man-hater to counter act my post. I know you are that desperate to put us down. I don't give those haters any more credence than I give your tears of sexual frustration.
No wonder you can't get laid!
I figured the response would be about my sex life or the length of my penis. Typical bullshit.
No wonder your raggedy ass movement is dying.
-
If you don't know about the glass cliff, then you've never broken through the ceiling. :hahaha:
Wow, you weren't kidding. There is such a concept as a glass cliff. The things you learn.
I know, right? I'm awesome. :eyelash:
-
How did a burrow-dwelling rodent learn about glass cliffs?
-
I learned it from Awiddershinlife. :lol1: <-- True story.
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
Modern day western feminists should focus their interests there.
Plenty of societies to choose from, though.
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
Modern day western feminists should focus their interests there.
Plenty of societies to choose from, though.
Agreed.
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
Modern day western feminists should focus their interests there.
Plenty of societies to choose from, though.
I think its a pretty safe bet not to concentrate on the west though. With a keyboard. :green:
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
Modern day western feminists should focus their interests there.
Plenty of societies to choose from, though.
I think its a pretty safe bet not to concentrate on the west though. With a keyboard. :green:
I hear the US is lagging behind on women's rights. :zoinks:
-
It implies that "with impunity" doesn't mean "no punishments whatsoever", but "exemption from an existing punishment".
Exactly A modern-day example is India and the recent rape cases.
Modern day western feminists should focus their interests there.
Plenty of societies to choose from, though.
I think its a pretty safe bet not to concentrate on the west though. With a keyboard. :green:
I hear the US is lagging behind on women's rights. :zoinks:
That's probably ALL you hear. The U.S. treats women like goddesses, and nothing has improved.
-
here is the Hannah's 2 cents...Why the heck is it still around? it being Feminism bleh bleh blah go to the People's Republic of China with that and see how long it lasts (having been on a humanitarian trip there at age 17 and getting over seeing someone shot, I can tell you not long)...Honestly it gives me a headache... :headhurts: It's worse then fox news, MSNBC (say what is that even news anymore?) I'd rather watch a public broadcast telethon then listen to the drivel being spewed by most these days...it's easy to spew verbiage isn't it? Yet takes oh 'effort' to put thought into something before pressing post send what have you...
That said I also love the fact that anyone can make something of themselves regardless of sex...for example I will be gainfully employed hopeful soon after my IT classes, I'm getting up off my rear and doing it because no one else will do so for me, and anything worth anything is worth the effort...I have had to pull teeth to get my IT classes covered but my mom whom is just great and thought me how to self advocate really well, thanks mom for showing me how to stand up for myself with class... :-*
That is all this female with Aspergers has to say on the subject...
-
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2whmc61.jpg)
-
:yarly:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2whmc61.jpg)
this made me laugh thanks :lol1:
-
here is the Hannah's 2 cents...Why the heck is it still around? it being Feminism bleh bleh blah go to the People's Republic of China with that and see how long it lasts (having been on a humanitarian trip there at age 17 and getting over seeing someone shot, I can tell you not long)...Honestly it gives me a headache... :headhurts: It's worse then fox news, MSNBC (say what is that even news anymore?) I'd rather watch a public broadcast telethon then listen to the drivel being spewed by most these days...it's easy to spew verbiage isn't it? Yet takes oh 'effort' to put thought into something before pressing post send what have you...
That said I also love the fact that anyone can make something of themselves regardless of sex...for example I will be gainfully employed hopeful soon after my IT classes, I'm getting up off my rear and doing it because no one else will do so for me, and anything worth anything is worth the effort...I have had to pull teeth to get my IT classes covered but my mom whom is just great and thought me how to self advocate really well, thanks mom for showing me how to stand up for myself with class... :-*
That is all this female with Aspergers has to say on the subject...
Impressive. You seem to understand where your strength and motivation really comes from.
-
here is the Hannah's 2 cents...Why the heck is it still around? it being Feminism bleh bleh blah go to the People's Republic of China with that and see how long it lasts (having been on a humanitarian trip there at age 17 and getting over seeing someone shot, I can tell you not long)...Honestly it gives me a headache... :headhurts: It's worse then fox news, MSNBC (say what is that even news anymore?) I'd rather watch a public broadcast telethon then listen to the drivel being spewed by most these days...it's easy to spew verbiage isn't it? Yet takes oh 'effort' to put thought into something before pressing post send what have you...
That said I also love the fact that anyone can make something of themselves regardless of sex...for example I will be gainfully employed hopeful soon after my IT classes, I'm getting up off my rear and doing it because no one else will do so for me, and anything worth anything is worth the effort...I have had to pull teeth to get my IT classes covered but my mom whom is just great and thought me how to self advocate really well, thanks mom for showing me how to stand up for myself with class... :-*
That is all this female with Aspergers has to say on the subject...
Impressive. You seem to understand where your strength and motivation really comes from.
Thank you Mr. RageBeoulve! :) It comes from first off from the faith I hold which without I'm not sure I'd be where I am at...also habit over time for example getting up no later then 9 am walking the dog cleaning up the house making the bed keeping my appointments keeping a budget etc...these things have been added a bit at a time over time (2 years) and they equal progress at the end of the day...no one does the small things for us as I've found (the hard way more times then I can count) so again thank you...
-
here is the Hannah's 2 cents...Why the heck is it still around? it being Feminism bleh bleh blah go to the People's Republic of China with that and see how long it lasts (having been on a humanitarian trip there at age 17 and getting over seeing someone shot, I can tell you not long)...Honestly it gives me a headache... :headhurts: It's worse then fox news, MSNBC (say what is that even news anymore?) I'd rather watch a public broadcast telethon then listen to the drivel being spewed by most these days...it's easy to spew verbiage isn't it? Yet takes oh 'effort' to put thought into something before pressing post send what have you...
That said I also love the fact that anyone can make something of themselves regardless of sex...for example I will be gainfully employed hopeful soon after my IT classes, I'm getting up off my rear and doing it because no one else will do so for me, and anything worth anything is worth the effort...I have had to pull teeth to get my IT classes covered but my mom whom is just great and thought me how to self advocate really well, thanks mom for showing me how to stand up for myself with class... :-*
That is all this female with Aspergers has to say on the subject...
Impressive. You seem to understand where your strength and motivation really comes from.
Thank you Mr. RageBeoulve! :) It comes from first off from the faith I hold which without I'm not sure I'd be where I am at...also habit over time for example getting up no later then 9 am walking the dog cleaning up the house making the bed keeping my appointments keeping a budget etc...these things have been added a bit at a time over time (2 years) and they equal progress at the end of the day...no one does the small things for us as I've found (the hard way more times then I can count) so again thank you...
No thanks needed. Seems like you know exactly how to motivate yourself and overcome. The world needs more of that.
-
:yarly:(http://i62.tinypic.com/2whmc61.jpg)
this made me laugh thanks :lol1:
No worries lol.
-
This thread is, sadly, not one of those threads that makes me glad to be a member of intensity (which some of the threads here on controversial topics actually do, because you can tell people involved are actually interested in getting new information), and is instead one of those threads that reminds me of the futility of arguing with people on the internet.
Rage was at least 50% trolling to start with, and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying. This thread's probably going the way he hoped it would.
-
This thread is, sadly, not one of those threads that makes me glad to be a member of intensity (which some of the threads here on controversial topics actually do, because you can tell people involved are actually interested in getting new information), and is instead one of those threads that reminds me of the futility of arguing with people on the internet.
Rage was at least 50% trolling to start with, and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying. This thread's probably going the way he hoped it would.
and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying.
Sounds like a splendid description of the bigoted female supremacist cult, but what do I know? I'm just a stupid ass white cismale with inherent privelige of over 9000 types. Props for at least staying away from insults about my sex life.
Want to see an abrasive thread about feminism? I can pull out a lot of dirty laundry. :zoinks:
-
This thread is, sadly, not one of those threads that makes me glad to be a member of intensity (which some of the threads here on controversial topics actually do, because you can tell people involved are actually interested in getting new information), and is instead one of those threads that reminds me of the futility of arguing with people on the internet.
Rage was at least 50% trolling to start with, and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying. This thread's probably going the way he hoped it would.
and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying.
Sounds like a splendid description of the bigoted female supremacist cult, but what do I know? I'm just a stupid ass white cismale with inherent privelige of over 9000 types. Props for at least staying away from insults about my sex life.
Want to see an abrasive thread about feminism? I can pull out a lot of dirty laundry. :zoinks:
You're painting all members of a broad group with the same brush- almost exactly what you're accusing feminists of doing, of course. You really just sound like you want to be angry, not like you want to talk about anything.
Yes, there are women who will self-identify as feminists who really mainly just have problems with men and want to frame that as some kind of political thing when what they really want is to bash men. They're usually damaged from previous encounters with men who were, in fact, shitty human beings, and have generalized that to all men. They turn me right the hell off as well; they're profoundly annoying at best, and destructive at worst.
That's not all people who identify as feminists. There's other mindsets, including the one Pyraxis described, and the one I largely agree with, (that pretty much just wants people to treat each other decently regardless of gender (or, under the same broad umbrella, sexual orientation)).
Thus far, what I've seen you coming out with, Rage, are:
*insisting that no, but really, "real" feminism is about man-hating (which is simply incorrect, and you have no decent argument to that point- just anecdotes, generalizations and persistence of noise)
*historically, feminism was all about man-hating (again, simply incorrect)
*feminism is too narrowly focused and should also focus on issues like poverty and worker's rights (Which is a bit of a tall order- while components of those things have been/are within the range of some traditionally feminist issues, there's a lot more which falls outside of even the broader definitions of feminism. Political focus on one issue while not focusing on another doesn't invalidate the focus, it just means the focus isn't comprehensive. Autism rights doesn't generally fight to save the dolphins. Doesn't mean the movement has a "and to hell with the stupid dolphins" subagenda.)
*stereotypes (again, anecdotes and generalizations persistence of noise)
*more anecdotes and generalizations and persistence of noise
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
-
This thread is, sadly, not one of those threads that makes me glad to be a member of intensity (which some of the threads here on controversial topics actually do, because you can tell people involved are actually interested in getting new information), and is instead one of those threads that reminds me of the futility of arguing with people on the internet.
Rage was at least 50% trolling to start with, and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying. This thread's probably going the way he hoped it would.
and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying.
Sounds like a splendid description of the bigoted female supremacist cult, but what do I know? I'm just a stupid ass white cismale with inherent privelige of over 9000 types. Props for at least staying away from insults about my sex life.
Want to see an abrasive thread about feminism? I can pull out a lot of dirty laundry. :zoinks:
You're painting all members of a broad group with the same brush- almost exactly what you're accusing feminists of doing, of course. You really just sound like you want to be angry, not like you want to talk about anything.
Yes, there are women who will self-identify as feminists who really mainly just have problems with men and want to frame that as some kind of political thing when what they really want is to bash men. They're usually damaged from previous encounters with men who were, in fact, shitty human beings, and have generalized that to all men. They turn me right the hell off as well; they're profoundly annoying at best, and destructive at worst.
That's not all people who identify as feminists. There's other mindsets, including the one Pyraxis described, and the one I largely agree with, (that pretty much just wants people to treat each other decently regardless of gender (or, under the same broad umbrella, sexual orientation)).
Thus far, what I've seen you coming out with, Rage, are:
*insisting that no, but really, "real" feminism is about man-hating (which is simply incorrect, and you have no decent argument to that point- just anecdotes, generalizations and persistence of noise)
*historically, feminism was all about man-hating (again, simply incorrect)
*feminism is too narrowly focused and should also focus on issues like poverty and worker's rights (Which is a bit of a tall order- while components of those things have been/are within the range of some traditionally feminist issues, there's a lot more which falls outside of even the broader definitions of feminism. Political focus on one issue while not focusing on another doesn't invalidate the focus, it just means the focus isn't comprehensive. Autism rights doesn't generally fight to save the dolphins. Doesn't mean the movement has a "and to hell with the stupid dolphins" subagenda.)
*stereotypes (again, anecdotes and generalizations persistence of noise)
*more anecdotes and generalizations and persistence of noise
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
Wrong. On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic. I am not talking about the few individuals who are actually decent, i'm talking about the actions and effects of "feminism".
Why do people always say the same thing when I speak of feminism honestly?
-
yaaawwwwwn...excuse me. very predictable. glad to know that you're so well acquainted with a plethora of feminists, rage.
-
Wrong. On the whole, aspergers are angry and violent. I am not talking about the few individuals who are actually decent, i'm talking about the actions and effects of "aspergers".
Why do people always say the same thing when I speak of autism honestly?
minor adaptions
-
Rage, you pick out extreme types, claiming to be feminist. And then you say that is third generation feminism.
It is not what I see in main stream third generation feminism. There is a lot of sensible thoughts to be found in main stream feminism. Feminism is the name it historically has. I would not mind it being changed into gender issues. Outcome would not be that different. It offers a pov based on gender differences. And yes, those differences, not only in general differences in biology and such, but also in non related behaviour and rights are there and will always be there. It is imperative to keep an eye on that.
Main stream third generation feminist in my country?
They want more parental leave for fathers. Because in Scandinavian countries fathers have just as much right on parental leave as mothers. And there you will not see the gap in career options between men and women.
Are men evil that in my country women have less chance for a nice job when in a relationship at a fertile age than men? No, of course not. Economically it makes sense to hire the man, who will not be away for ten weeks when a baby is born. If you make the chance that a man has a right to get that leave as big as for a woman, both men and women have the same chance for the job.
That will make women financially more independent. It will make that men get to care more for their kids. It will make that after a divorce less alimony will be paid, and less kids will end up estranged from one parent, because both of them raised them.
Another big issue is that women working is not that long a tradition yet. There is no tradition of women taking good care of their pension and things like that either. So, third wave feminism aims at women to become more financially independent, not depending on their spouses or exes.
Gender differences in the west? Two weeks ago a woman won a case against an insurance company. She had insured her income well, and got a big accident, losing the capacity to do her job. The insurance decided to pay out a lot less, based on the fact that she was a woman, and therefor would probably miss ten years out of her working career.
Gender differences in the west? Today in the newspaper, alarming figures about boys from lower income/education families. Till recently, both sons and daughters from those families would get more education than their parents ever had. Now the girls are still eager to get good educations, and lots of boys can't be arsed. So, now it is the case to look into this, what makes that those boys are giving up on education.
I read a main stream feminist magazine. Lots of the passion is about women abroad. Empowering them. I don't see things about hating men. Lots is about telling women in the west to take full responsibility for themselves. And an article about a female lawyer trying to fight the law, so that men with acknowledged kids out of wedlock can get the right to see their kids too is can be found in that magazine too.
If any company can get things done cheaper, by selecting on gender, they will. That has nothing to do with being male or female of the executives of that company. Feminism is not about hating men. It is about discovering where your gender can be an advantage or disadvantage in rights. And act upon that. Claiming rights where they should be there, calling injustice when they see it, and exploring where things can be fixed.
-
This thread is, sadly, not one of those threads that makes me glad to be a member of intensity (which some of the threads here on controversial topics actually do, because you can tell people involved are actually interested in getting new information), and is instead one of those threads that reminds me of the futility of arguing with people on the internet.
Rage was at least 50% trolling to start with, and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying. This thread's probably going the way he hoped it would.
and I'm not seeing any interest on his part of hearing opposing sides- he just want to keep on saying what he's saying.
Sounds like a splendid description of the bigoted female supremacist cult, but what do I know? I'm just a stupid ass white cismale with inherent privelige of over 9000 types. Props for at least staying away from insults about my sex life.
Want to see an abrasive thread about feminism? I can pull out a lot of dirty laundry. :zoinks:
You're painting all members of a broad group with the same brush- almost exactly what you're accusing feminists of doing, of course. You really just sound like you want to be angry, not like you want to talk about anything.
Yes, there are women who will self-identify as feminists who really mainly just have problems with men and want to frame that as some kind of political thing when what they really want is to bash men. They're usually damaged from previous encounters with men who were, in fact, shitty human beings, and have generalized that to all men. They turn me right the hell off as well; they're profoundly annoying at best, and destructive at worst.
That's not all people who identify as feminists. There's other mindsets, including the one Pyraxis described, and the one I largely agree with, (that pretty much just wants people to treat each other decently regardless of gender (or, under the same broad umbrella, sexual orientation)).
Thus far, what I've seen you coming out with, Rage, are:
*insisting that no, but really, "real" feminism is about man-hating (which is simply incorrect, and you have no decent argument to that point- just anecdotes, generalizations and persistence of noise)
*historically, feminism was all about man-hating (again, simply incorrect)
*feminism is too narrowly focused and should also focus on issues like poverty and worker's rights (Which is a bit of a tall order- while components of those things have been/are within the range of some traditionally feminist issues, there's a lot more which falls outside of even the broader definitions of feminism. Political focus on one issue while not focusing on another doesn't invalidate the focus, it just means the focus isn't comprehensive. Autism rights doesn't generally fight to save the dolphins. Doesn't mean the movement has a "and to hell with the stupid dolphins" subagenda.)
*stereotypes (again, anecdotes and generalizations persistence of noise)
*more anecdotes and generalizations and persistence of noise
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
Wrong. On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic. I am not talking about the few individuals who are actually decent, i'm talking about the actions and effects of "feminism".
Why do people always say the same thing when I speak of feminism honestly?
Weak.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
I don't think it's possible to "back up" that assertion through anything other than anecdotal evidence.
Of the feminists that I personally know, it's a 50/50 mix which is still far too many.
The angry and toxic feminists tend to be mentally ill too. (lots of BPD's and social anxiety disorder)
-
Wrong. On the whole, aspergers are angry and violent. I am not talking about the few individuals who are actually decent, i'm talking about the actions and effects of "aspergers".
Why do people always say the same thing when I speak of autism honestly?
minor adaptions
Big difference. Aspergers is not an ideology, and it is not largely interested in the invasion of all cultural aspects of society.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Maybe explain how it is that you get to meet the toxic ones, and I get to meet the others.
Of course there are nutters who are feminists, or gold diggers claiming to be feminists, but that is not the bulk of feminists.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Maybe explain how it is that you get to meet the toxic ones, and I get to meet the others.
Of course there are nutters who are feminists, or gold diggers claiming to be feminists, but that is not the bulk of feminists.
Probably because you don't live in jesusland.
-
Wrong. On the whole, aspergers are angry and violent. I am not talking about the few individuals who are actually decent, i'm talking about the actions and effects of "aspergers".
Why do people always say the same thing when I speak of autism honestly?
minor adaptions
Big difference. Aspergers is not an ideology, and it is not largely interested in the invasion of all cultural aspects of society.
Of course I know aspies are born aspies, feminism is a pov. But, the analogy is not completely bollocks. It's using people like Volkert van der Graaf and Anders Breivic to desciribe all aspies with. And that is just as accurate as what you are doing.
And some people do try to use that tactic on autism.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Maybe explain how it is that you get to meet the toxic ones, and I get to meet the others.
Of course there are nutters who are feminists, or gold diggers claiming to be feminists, but that is not the bulk of feminists.
Probably because you don't live in jesusland.
That deserves a different thread.
-
I disagree. Its about feminism.
-
I disagree. Its about feminism.
So, your feminism is different than mine, because atheism is not frowned upon in my country, and is an abomination in yours?
How about the feminism of Py and Elle? They do live in the same country as you do. And they do talk sensible things.
Don't know where Awhiddershin is from, but how about her feminism?
-
I disagree. Its about feminism.
So, your feminism is different than mine, because atheism is not frowned upon in my country, and is an abomination in yours?
How about the feminism of Py and Elle? They do live in the same country as you do. And they do talk sensible things.
Don't know where Awhiddershin is from, but how about her feminism?
Didn't say anything about Atheism, just about feminism in my country. And a lot of the UK. Py and Elle are sensible to be sure, but they get their hackles raised when I speak critically of feminism, as if I were speaking critically of women.
That's never going to be ok in my book.
Don't know where Awhiddershin is from, but how about her feminism
Its shit. I detect quite a bit of poisonous ideologue in her, even though she seems to be old enough to have the mastery of rhetoric to make reasonable sounding statements.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Nothing wrong with having an opinion. :laugh:
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Kinda like you, Rage.
So your problem is with your and your imagined feminist's anger and toxicity or just that of your imagined feminists?
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Kinda like you, Rage.
:rofl: :pwned:
So your problem is with your and your imagined feminist's anger and toxicity or just that of your imagined feminists?
Toxic feminists are very real, I grew up with a few.
Their anger and toxicity is closely intertwined with their feminist politics so you can't really seperate the two.
The personal is the political and all that.
-
Probably because you don't live in jesusland.
I disagree. Its about feminism.
USA Bible Belt, right? I lived there for a couple of years. Yeah there are an awful lot of Jesus freaks but I'm really surprised you would blame feminism and not, say, Christianity, for that.
Py and Elle are sensible to be sure, but they get their hackles raised when I speak critically of feminism, as if I were speaking critically of women.
That's never going to be ok in my book.
Oh, what, me getting my hackles raised is a problem, but your hackles are all over this damn thread and that's just fine? Serious double standard, dude.
-
Oh, what, me getting my hackles raised is a problem, but your hackles are all over this damn thread and that's just fine? Serious double standard, dude.
Right on, Pyraxis
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
I expect you to refrain from sweeping generalisations that you have no intention of backing up when arguing.
-
Probably because you don't live in jesusland.
I disagree. Its about feminism.
USA Bible Belt, right? I lived there for a couple of years. Yeah there are an awful lot of Jesus freaks but I'm really surprised you would blame feminism and not, say, Christianity, for that.
Py and Elle are sensible to be sure, but they get their hackles raised when I speak critically of feminism, as if I were speaking critically of women.
That's never going to be ok in my book.
Oh, what, me getting my hackles raised is a problem, but your hackles are all over this damn thread and that's just fine? Serious double standard, dude.
You know full well it has nothing to do with jesus freaks. I used "jesus land" as a derogatory term for America.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
I expect you to refrain from sweeping generalisations that you have no intention of backing up when arguing.
It isn't a sweeping generalization. Feminism does negative things.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
I expect you to refrain from sweeping generalisations that you have no intention of backing up when arguing.
It isn't a sweeping generalization. Feminism does negative things.
You only seem to see negative things. Not only in feminism.
You're too young to be a bitter old man, Rage.
-
You only seem to see negative things. Not only in feminism.
You're too young to be a bitter old man, Rage.
It's a bit of a catch 22. People who try to focus on positives in life are called deluded and marked with the implication of not caring about the negative. Tend to think a lot of people cry in pity or cry in outrage, so having the appearance they care, but they do nothing other than make noise about how they care. Maybe Rage actually cares, and does more than make noises of outrage. If so, then that's good, because optimist or pessimist, people actually take action when they care.
-
You only seem to see negative things. Not only in feminism.
You're too young to be a bitter old man, Rage.
It's a bit of a catch 22. People who try to focus on positives in life are called deluded and marked with the implication of not caring about the negative. Tend to think a lot of people cry in pity or cry in outrage, so having the appearance they care, but they do nothing other than make noise about how they care. Maybe Rage actually cares, and does more than make noises of outrage. If so, then that's good, because optimist or pessimist, people actually take action when they care.
That makes sense. I get what you mean with positives and negatives. I am aware that every positive turn in things brings negative with it. I know I sometimes am too optimistic for my own good. But, I am not turning a blind eye to the negative.
Last years, I could see in Rage's posts that he cared. Now I find it hard to see it. I see fulmination after fulmination and barely the will to look at things from another pov. Don't know whether it is bitterness or trolling. If it is because he cares, the message gets lost in the way he posts for me.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Kinda like you, Rage.
:rofl: :pwned:
So your problem is with your and your imagined feminist's anger and toxicity or just that of your imagined feminists?
Toxic feminists are very real, I grew up with a few.
Their anger and toxicity is closely intertwined with their feminist politics so you can't really seperate the two.
The personal is the political and all that.
That sucks, Pappy. Its hard to deal with people like that as an adult, can't imagine as a child since I was a runner. All idealistic groups seem to attract these big mouths.
-
Last years, I could see in Rage's posts that he cared. Now I find it hard to see it. I see fulmination after fulmination and barely the will to look at things from another pov. Don't know whether it is bitterness or trolling. If it is because he cares, the message gets lost in the way he posts for me.
:indeed:
The Nitsche quote about those who persue monsters comes to mind. Rage, while running around screeching about the rabbit hole of feminism, has fallen down his own rabbit hole.
-
The Nitsche quote about those who persue monsters comes to mind. Rage, while running around screeching about the rabbit hole of feminism, has fallen down his own rabbit hole.
That so applies to me. Except I am enraged not about feminism, but that someone violated my ODDness. Now I want to quit my job. But if I rewrite it
'Rage, while running around screeching about the rabbit hole of bureaucratic, Luddite rules, has fallen down her own rabbit hole.'
It does knock a bit of sense into me - thanks :lol1:
-
You know full well it has nothing to do with jesus freaks. I used "jesus land" as a derogatory term for America.
Oh ok, then yeah I misunderstood.
Seems like your real goal here is empowerment.
-
You know full well it has nothing to do with jesus freaks. I used "jesus land" as a derogatory term for America.
Oh ok, then yeah I misunderstood.
Seems like your real goal here is empowerment.
Yes. Yes it is. :)
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
I expect you to refrain from sweeping generalisations that you have no intention of backing up when arguing.
It isn't a sweeping generalization. Feminism does negative things.
You only seem to see negative things. Not only in feminism.
You're too young to be a bitter old man, Rage.
This may be true, Hykes. I just see too many social constructs being used to socially engineer, and it really bothers me. I don't just bitch about it on here or anything though. I actually do take action against the types of things I talk about in various ways.
ITT and related to the thread: I don't think feminism is a positive force as a whole at this point. The movement has been and is being used to do very negative things. Its probably time to just throw it away and replace it with purely egalitarian principles, as to bring about equal opportunities for everyone in a more direct way.
Exceptions and special cases keep being used to screw things up for everyone.
-
Feminism was promoted, purely because it'd get both parents paying taxes. Whatever the good intentions of some and the results.
-
This may be true, Hykes. I just see too many social constructs being used to socially engineer, and it really bothers me. I don't just bitch about it on here or anything though. I actually do take action against the types of things I talk about in various ways.
ITT and related to the thread: I don't think feminism is a positive force as a whole at this point. The movement has been and is being used to do very negative things. Its probably time to just throw it away and replace it with purely egalitarian principles, as to bring about equal opportunities for everyone in a more direct way.
Exceptions and special cases keep being used to screw things up for everyone.
Every social construct will have bad things. The bigger the group of people, the bigger the chance that manipulative and power crazy people find a way to feed their needs in that social construct. I do prefer a social construct with some ways to draw a line to that, apart from smashing some skulls.
If improving a society through any liberation movement, or egalitarian movement leads to regulation after regulation, and exception on rules after exception on rules, it will be counter-productive. And it will only lead to more chances of manipulation and power horny actions.
But, rewriting law, to get non equal things out of it makes sense. And as a society being aware of where pitfalls are, so you can act on it, I think that is good. Women and men are different. As individuals of course. But there are average group differences too. Those will lead to differences in the place of people in society, and when things like that go weird, it is time to act on it.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
I expect you to refrain from sweeping generalisations that you have no intention of backing up when arguing.
It isn't a sweeping generalization. Feminism does negative things.
If it isn't a sweeping generalisation, then *back it up*.
-
Feminism was promoted, purely because it'd get both parents paying taxes. Whatever the good intentions of some and the results.
I disagree. If that had been the case there wouldn't be big gaps in income between the sexes.
-
Feminism was promoted, purely because it'd get both parents paying taxes. Whatever the good intentions of some and the results.
I disagree. If that had been the case there wouldn't be big gaps in income between the sexes.
The "income gap" is largely a myth. If women were actually paid that much less than men for the same work, then employers would be scrambling to hire them to save money. Companies (for the most part) are motivated by the bottom line, not mythological bigotry.
The "income gap" is produced when women take time off work to raise kids while the men keep working. A mans career continues to advance where a woman has to start from square one again after being out of the work force.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/)
-
Feminism was promoted, purely because it'd get both parents paying taxes. Whatever the good intentions of some and the results.
I disagree. If that had been the case there wouldn't be big gaps in income between the sexes.
The "income gap" is largely a myth. If women were actually paid that much less than men for the same work, then employers would be scrambling to hire them to save money. Companies (for the most part) are motivated by the bottom line, not mythological bigotry.
The "income gap" is produced when women take time off work to raise kids while the men keep working. A mans career continues to advance where a woman has to start from square one again after being out of the work force.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/)
When there are kids, and a couple decides not to go for full time daycare, then most of the time it is the one who earns less who gives up part of the job, to take care of the kids. Economically most sensible thing to do.
And, as you said, it is mainly women to do that, because they often are the ones earning less.
The gender pay gap is not a complete myth. In contracts with fixed incomes, you will not find it, but otherwise it is there.
In jobs were there is not such a thing, but where salary is partly about negotiating, there often is a gap indeed.
-
Employers also seem to think men are more obliged to work then women, when they have kids. There is a unpaid parenting leave right in my country. For men it is way harder to get that right than for women. The effect is even more than women do the caring, not the men, simply because their bosses don't grant them the right they have.
All and all, it is a catch 22 thing.
With women way more than men starting from scratch again. Not because men are evil, but because economy makes that profitable for companies.
-
Employers also seem to think men are more obliged to work then women, when they have kids. There is a unpaid parenting leave right in my country. For men it is way harder to get that right than for women.
That's as it should be. Men don't have mamary glands. :bounce:
The effect is even more than women do the caring, not the men, simply because their bosses don't grant them the right they have.
No, that's more driven by biology.
With women way more than men starting from scratch again. Not because men are evil, but because economy makes that profitable for companies.
No, you just expect that men should be given a career handicap, by government fiat, that women have because of biology.
-
Employers also seem to think men are more obliged to work then women, when they have kids. There is a unpaid parenting leave right in my country. For men it is way harder to get that right than for women.
That's as it should be. Men don't have mamary glands. :bounce:
The effect is even more than women do the caring, not the men, simply because their bosses don't grant them the right they have.
No, that's more driven by biology.
With women way more than men starting from scratch again. Not because men are evil, but because economy makes that profitable for companies.
No, you just expect that men should be given a career handicap, by government fiat, that women have because of biology.
Oh FFS Scrap, did you really imply here women should do the caring for kids, because biology made them more capable to do so?
Bollocks, utter bollocks. Yes, biologically, women give birth, biologically, women will lactate with less hassle than men. But being a caring parent, capable to give loving and healthy care to an infant has nothing to do with what is between the legs of a parent. Some women are not fit to be a parent, no matter of having given birth, plenty of men are great fathers. You are doing your gender no service with this.
Your biology reason is as valid as me telling you people are meant to travel by foot, because biology. There is more to life than biology alone.
Your biology reason is validating mothers having kids after divorce, and men fit for only paying alimony, because of biology.
Utter bollocks.
And kids do need more than milk alone. Even when breast milk was the only option for tiny babies, men were capable of being part of caring for their kids.
-
This may be true, Hykes. I just see too many social constructs being used to socially engineer, and it really bothers me. I don't just bitch about it on here or anything though. I actually do take action against the types of things I talk about in various ways.
ITT and related to the thread: I don't think feminism is a positive force as a whole at this point. The movement has been and is being used to do very negative things. Its probably time to just throw it away and replace it with purely egalitarian principles, as to bring about equal opportunities for everyone in a more direct way.
Exceptions and special cases keep being used to screw things up for everyone.
Every social construct will have bad things. The bigger the group of people, the bigger the chance that manipulative and power crazy people find a way to feed their needs in that social construct. I do prefer a social construct with some ways to draw a line to that, apart from smashing some skulls.
If improving a society through any liberation movement, or egalitarian movement leads to regulation after regulation, and exception on rules after exception on rules, it will be counter-productive. And it will only lead to more chances of manipulation and power horny actions.
But, rewriting law, to get non equal things out of it makes sense. And as a society being aware of where pitfalls are, so you can act on it, I think that is good. Women and men are different. As individuals of course. But there are average group differences too. Those will lead to differences in the place of people in society, and when things like that go weird, it is time to act on it.
If improving a society through any liberation movement, or egalitarian movement leads to regulation after regulation, and exception on rules after exception on rules, it will be counter-productive. And it will only lead to more chances of manipulation and power horny actions.
Not if exceptions are removed, and all are held to the exact same standards. This is why I say feminism is a weak link, and so is the male right movement. At this point I think its time to throw these away and get on the same page. It will make for a far stronger, less sickly culture.
I don't know how better to explain it. All these "i'm so special" movements are just causing too many problems, in my opinion.
-
Oh FFS Scrap, did you really imply here women should do the caring for kids, because biology made them more capable to do so?
Yes, because there's suficient evidence to back that up.
Bollocks, utter bollocks. Yes, biologically, women give birth, biologically, women will lactate with less hassle than men. But being a caring parent, capable to give loving and healthy care to an infant has nothing to do with what is between the legs of a parent.
The majority of evolutionary psychologists I've spoken with would disagree with you on that and have considerable evidence to back that up.
Some women are not fit to be a parent, no matter of having given birth, plenty of men are great fathers.
The exceptions don't disprove the general rule.
Your biology reason is as valid as me telling you people are meant to travel by foot, because biology.
Do you have wings on your back??
Your biology reason is validating mothers having kids after divorce, and men fit for only paying alimony, because of biology.
In the majority of cases women get primary custody anyways. That is as it should be.
And kids do need more than milk alone. Even when breast milk was the only option for tiny babies, men were capable of being part of caring for their kids.
500 years ago, could a man be the primary caregiver for an infant? fuck no.
The only "bollocks" here is your absurd notion that there are no neurological differences between men and women despite the mountain of science that says otherwise.
Here's some Norwegian "scientists" who are as confused as you are.
The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70#ws)
-
Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.
Why are you doing that?
Boys and girls are different. Fundamentally different in the body and mind, and no amount of idealistic hippieness will change that. Yes, dude. I agree. But a man is far more capable of caring for children than you seem to think. In my opinion, a child doesn't really get a proper upbringing without both a mother AND father, but that's another discussion.
-
Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.
Why are you doing that?
Boys and girls are different. Fundamentally different in the body and mind, and no amount of idealistic hippieness will change that. Yes, dude. I agree. But a man is far more capable of caring for children than you seem to think. In my opinion, a child doesn't really get a proper upbringing without both a mother AND father, but that's another discussion.
I agree wholeheartedly that boys and girls are different in body and mind. I agree that it is good for kids to be raised by more than one person, I agree that kids should have people of both gender making a difference in their life, by being committed to them.
The differences between you and me are not that big, when it comes to this, Rage.
-
Bollocks, utter bollocks. Yes, biologically, women give birth, biologically, women will lactate with less hassle than men. But being a caring parent, capable to give loving and healthy care to an infant has nothing to do with what is between the legs of a parent.
The majority of evolutionary psychologists I've spoken with would disagree with you on that and have considerable evidence to back that up.
Evolutionary psychologists will tell me fathers make crap parents?
Some women are not fit to be a parent, no matter of having given birth, plenty of men are great fathers.
The exceptions don't disprove the general rule.
since when is plenty a word to use for exceptions?
Your biology reason is as valid as me telling you people are meant to travel by foot, because biology.
Do you have wings on your back??
Of course not, but I do not mind using ways of traveling that go faster than what biology would let my body do.
Your biology reason is validating mothers having kids after divorce, and men fit for only paying alimony, because of biology.
In the majority of cases women get primary custody anyways. That is as it should be.
Take a time traveling machine and go back to the stone age, you might be more happy there.
And kids do need more than milk alone. Even when breast milk was the only option for tiny babies, men were capable of being part of caring for their kids.
500 years ago, could a man be the primary caregiver for an infant? fuck no.
with lots of mothers dying during birth, there must have been men being the sole caregiver for kids.
The only "bollocks" here is your absurd notion that there are no neurological differences between men and women despite the mountain of science that says otherwise
Tell me where I said there were no neurological differences.
-
Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.
Why are you doing that?
Boys and girls are different. Fundamentally different in the body and mind, and no amount of idealistic hippieness will change that. Yes, dude. I agree. But a man is far more capable of caring for children than you seem to think. In my opinion, a child doesn't really get a proper upbringing without both a mother AND father, but that's another discussion.
I agree wholeheartedly that boys and girls are different in body and mind. I agree that it is good for kids to be raised by more than one person, I agree that kids should have people of both gender making a difference in their life, by being committed to them.
The differences between you and me are not that big, when it comes to this, Rage.
Agreed. I just think feminism has run it's course, that's all.
-
Py and Elle are sensible to be sure, but they get their hackles raised when I speak critically of feminism, as if I were speaking critically of women.
That's never going to be ok in my book.
Oh, what, me getting my hackles raised is a problem, but your hackles are all over this damn thread and that's just fine? Serious double standard, dude.
And this is intensity. What does it say right on our damn front page here, again?
There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.
I expect you to refrain from sweeping generalisations that you have no intention of backing up when arguing.
Yes.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
-
Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.
Why are you doing that?
Translation: I got caught red-handed putting words into Pappy's mouth and making straw-man arguments. Instead of making a retraction and perhaps apologizing, I decided to double down and pretend that Pappy was the instigator instead of the victim of my slanderous comments so that I could save face in the eyes of those who aren't paying attention.
Amiright??
-
I'm so lost right now and don't get why the heck folks are getting so defensive...I'm to lazy to be defensive or go on it...then again, hey chill and pass the popcorn will ya? :yarly:
-
Some people enjoy the challenging types.
-
Some people enjoy the challenging types.
it would seem that way...me I save the energy for a good work out like the work out DVD today kicked my butt! woo wee insanity workouts are well think of them as argument threads here in workout form on steroids :viking:
Edit to add: so you insanity work out to be to dang tired to give a crap about things or type out an 'argument' would be a suggestion I have
-
Challenging people isn't necessarily about argument. Jack has already challenged you; you found it food for thought.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
-
Scrap, seriously. I don't know whats going on in your life right now, but you need to cool it with the oppositional behavior to everything. We agree on many things concerning socio-economic behavior but it seems to me that you're just picking scrapes with people for the hell of it.
Why are you doing that?
Translation: I got caught red-handed putting words into Pappy's mouth and making straw-man arguments. Instead of making a retraction and perhaps apologizing, I decided to double down and pretend that Pappy was the instigator instead of the victim of my slanderous comments so that I could save face in the eyes of those who aren't paying attention.
Amiright??
I was talking about your behavior towards hykes, dude. I don't even know what words I was supposed to be putting in your mouth.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
-
Challenging people isn't necessarily about argument. Jack has already challenged you; you found it food for thought.
good point! :yarly:
-
She did it to you again. :hahaha:
-
Feminism was promoted, purely because it'd get both parents paying taxes. Whatever the good intentions of some and the results.
I disagree. If that had been the case there wouldn't be big gaps in income between the sexes.
The "income gap" is largely a myth. If women were actually paid that much less than men for the same work, then employers would be scrambling to hire them to save money. Companies (for the most part) are motivated by the bottom line, not mythological bigotry.
The "income gap" is produced when women take time off work to raise kids while the men keep working. A mans career continues to advance where a woman has to start from square one again after being out of the work force.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/)
Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.
Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.
-
I'm so lost right now and don't get why the heck folks are getting so defensive...I'm to lazy to be defensive or go on it...then again, hey chill and pass the popcorn will ya? :yarly:
We even have a smiley for that: :popcorn:
This is what Intensity is, sometimes. It is one of the reasons why I love it. When things start to heat up and arguments are thrown back and forth. When people take an actual stance and speak out.
It remains my firm belief that this board, at its best, enables the spazzes, and the arguments, however misguided or flippant, are a big part of that.
-
I should add that I've frequently argued against stances taken by both Scrap and Rage, and will sometimes disagree very strongly with what they have to say and do my utmost to bring their arguments down.
Those disagreements have never made me like either of them less, however. Scrap and me have had our fights, for example, but these arguments were never the reason. The fights, I believe, were always about entirely different matters.
So basically what I'm saying is that what you're seeing here is, for the most part, healthy.
-
Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.
Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.
If this place didn't talk in cycles or circles every now and then, might run out of things to talk about. :laugh:
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
-
The "income gap" is largely a myth. If women were actually paid that much less than men for the same work, then employers would be scrambling to hire them to save money. Companies (for the most part) are motivated by the bottom line, not mythological bigotry.
The "income gap" is produced when women take time off work to raise kids while the men keep working. A mans career continues to advance where a woman has to start from square one again after being out of the work force.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/)
Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.
Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.
I distinctly remember you backing me up on the fact that there is an income gap and misogyny in the upper ranks of companies with first-hand experience from your job.
-
The "income gap" is largely a myth. If women were actually paid that much less than men for the same work, then employers would be scrambling to hire them to save money. Companies (for the most part) are motivated by the bottom line, not mythological bigotry.
The "income gap" is produced when women take time off work to raise kids while the men keep working. A mans career continues to advance where a woman has to start from square one again after being out of the work force.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/)
Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.
Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.
I distinctly remember you backing me up on the fact that there is an income gap and misogyny in the upper ranks of companies with first-hand experience from your job.
So do I.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.
Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.
One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:
A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.
Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.
-
*scratches butt* :situp: :pump: dude working out makes my rear sweat what the
-
*scratches butt* :situp: :pump: dude working out makes my rear sweat what the
That's why I only watch people working out :headbang2:
-
*scratches butt* :situp: :pump: dude working out makes my rear sweat what the
That's why I only watch people working out :headbang2:
Because you like watching butt sweat? :zoinks:
-
:include: :2thumbsup:
-
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/7a277f577916cf96aa57f7892e7a648c/tumblr_n12x4faH5k1rle9u4o1_500.jpg)
-
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/7a277f577916cf96aa57f7892e7a648c/tumblr_n12x4faH5k1rle9u4o1_500.jpg)
nice
-
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg39/janetcoe/I-Found-This-Humerus.png) (http://s244.photobucket.com/user/janetcoe/media/I-Found-This-Humerus.png.html)
-
Scrap, will you be sharing some more deep insights on the subject?
-
"Feminism is a wonderful project, the emancipation of women from stupid restrictions, preventing them from going to University, stopping them from voting, stopping them from holding property, who can disapprove? This isn't about feminism, this is the mad project that says men and women are the same.."
I call it new feminism. Of course there's a lot of women with sticks lodged up their arses from failed relationships, and basically hate men, who are only too happy to latch onto this lunacy. It's a bit like the fireman tests being made easier so women could pass them, which could actually end up being fatal. Now the PC label is "firefighter". It's all purely to cause rifts between the people so they blame each other rather than the powers that be.
-
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg39/janetcoe/I-Found-This-Humerus.png) (http://s244.photobucket.com/user/janetcoe/media/I-Found-This-Humerus.png.html)
:laugh:
-
I'm tired of having the institution of social justice filled with professional failures at life. I hate them.
-
lol
-
Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.
Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.
If this place didn't talk in cycles or circles every now and then, might run out of things to talk about. :laugh:
True, of course. When is it time to bitch about Alex Plank?
-
The "income gap" is largely a myth. If women were actually paid that much less than men for the same work, then employers would be scrambling to hire them to save money. Companies (for the most part) are motivated by the bottom line, not mythological bigotry.
The "income gap" is produced when women take time off work to raise kids while the men keep working. A mans career continues to advance where a woman has to start from square one again after being out of the work force.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/)
Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.
Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.
I distinctly remember you backing me up on the fact that there is an income gap and misogyny in the upper ranks of companies with first-hand experience from your job.
Correct.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.
Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.
One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:
A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.
Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.
Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.
Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.
One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:
A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.
Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.
Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".
:indeed:
Even if legislation was being completely universal, it will not mean that people are being treated fair. Looking at things focusing on gender, race and things like that will show where things are not fair, despite the universal legislation. If a company can get away with, in general, paying people belonging to one group less than others, they will. There are always ways to do that, despite legislation. Does not have to mean that you have to make exceptions for groups in legislation.
Critical checking will always be needed. Seeing where things have not had attention too. Right now, heart conditions in women are becoming a trending topic. Apparently men have completely different symptoms, when having a heart-attack than women. And lots of women get sent home with nausea, diarrhea or menopausal verdicts, when it is their heart about to give up. Legislation will not help there. Studying the differences will.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.
Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.
One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:
A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.
Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.
Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".
While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off.
Why?
There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
Yes... there is, isn't there? Don't you think that is basically what I mean? ;)
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.
Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.
One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:
A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.
Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.
Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".
:indeed:
Even if legislation was being completely universal, it will not mean that people are being treated fair. Looking at things focusing on gender, race and things like that will show where things are not fair, despite the universal legislation. If a company can get away with, in general, paying people belonging to one group less than others, they will. There are always ways to do that, despite legislation. Does not have to mean that you have to make exceptions for groups in legislation.
Critical checking will always be needed. Seeing where things have not had attention too. Right now, heart conditions in women are becoming a trending topic. Apparently men have completely different symptoms, when having a heart-attack than women. And lots of women get sent home with nausea, diarrhea or menopausal verdicts, when it is their heart about to give up. Legislation will not help there. Studying the differences will.
Legislation isn't enough, Hyke. I'd like kids to stop being taught these divides and exceptions, and people to be aggressively ostracized when they display such points of view.
Not just legislation, but complete change socially as well.
-
Legislation isn't enough, Hyke. I'd like kids to stop being taught these divides and exceptions, and people to be aggressively ostracized when they display such points of view.
Not just legislation, but complete change socially as well.
You're more optimistic about the human race than I am, Rage.
No matter how perfect legislation and social construction, no matter how open and honest kids are raised, if corporations, or golddigging individuals get the chance to treat one group of people a bit less than others, for their own gain, they will.
There always needs to be awareness, a watchdog, looking out for that, and acting upon it, when it happens. .
-
Legislation isn't enough, Hyke. I'd like kids to stop being taught these divides and exceptions, and people to be aggressively ostracized when they display such points of view.
Not just legislation, but complete change socially as well.
You're more optimistic about the human race than I am, Rage.
No matter how perfect legislation and social construction, no matter how open and honest kids are raised, if corporations, or golddigging individuals get the chance to treat one group of people a bit less than others, for their own gain, they will.
There always needs to be awareness, a watchdog, looking out for that, and acting upon it, when it happens. .
There always needs to be awareness, a watchdog, looking out for that, and acting upon it, when it happens. .
Every living person. I'd like for a "If you see something like this, say it at the top of your voice" policy to be engrained right into the core of society.
-
This all just creates more separation and taxes, as intended.
-
I'd like for a "If you see something like this, say it at the top of your voice" policy to be engrained right into the core of society.
:indeed:
What a wonderful world it would be
-
I'd like for a "If you see something like this, say it at the top of your voice" policy to be engrained right into the core of society.
:indeed:
What a wonderful world it would be
A lot less classified. Seems i'm not such a shitlord after all, eh? :zoinks:
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.
Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.
One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:
A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.
Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.
Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".
While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off.
Why?
Because even the simplest of movements would have too much to do. I think I already said this.
There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
Yes... there is, isn't there? Don't you think that is basically what I mean? ;)
Yes, I fear it's what you meant, which is the problem. You are basically advocating fighting everything at once.
-
On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.
Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?
There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?
Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:
What do you want to accomplish, here? Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage? To you want to learn something? Do you want to teach something? Do you have a goal at all?
You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism. I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.
If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. :zoinks:
weak.
Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.
That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.
I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.
OK, to clarify, then: That is what you're saying your main point is, then? When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.
Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.
Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.
One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:
A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.
Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.
Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".
While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off.
Why?
Because even the simplest of movements would have too much to do. I think I already said this.
There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.
Yes... there is, isn't there? Don't you think that is basically what I mean? ;)
Yes, I fear it's what you meant, which is the problem. You are basically advocating fighting everything at once.
Yes, I fear it's what you meant, which is the problem. You are basically advocating fighting everything at once.
I am indeed. The mere act of unifying would actually make a lot of the "everything" people would be fighting a non-issue, though. I'm not saying everyone has to be the same, but to create a united front of social justice and civil rights. I say this because we actually are all fighting the same thing, but are being manipulated into fighting one another.
-
How do you think you can purge manipulation and greed and hunger for power out of the human race? How will you get people this fair?
I do admire your positive outlook on humankind, but it is naive. Never thought I'd be the one saying that to you. Over all, I give people the benefit of doubt, and start with a positive slate with new people. But, this is way too optimistic on humankind for me.
If it could work, it would be in a group that did not exceed ten people or so.
-
How do you think you can purge manipulation and greed and hunger for power out of the human race? How will you get people this fair?
I do admire your positive outlook on humankind, but it is naive. Never thought I'd be the one saying that to you. Over all, I give people the benefit of doubt, and start with a positive slate with new people. But, this is way too optimistic on humankind for me.
If it could work, it would be in a group that did not exceed ten people or so.
It'd never work with the current or prior generations. This would have to be something started anew as the already established ideologues would resist change to the grave.
-
How do you think you can purge manipulation and greed and hunger for power out of the human race? How will you get people this fair?
I do admire your positive outlook on humankind, but it is naive. Never thought I'd be the one saying that to you. Over all, I give people the benefit of doubt, and start with a positive slate with new people. But, this is way too optimistic on humankind for me.
If it could work, it would be in a group that did not exceed ten people or so.
It'd never work with the current or prior generations. This would have to be something started anew as the already established ideologues would resist change to the grave.
How do you want to do that? You do not only need to get rid of established ideologies, also of inherent tendencies in people.
-
How do you think you can purge manipulation and greed and hunger for power out of the human race? How will you get people this fair?
I do admire your positive outlook on humankind, but it is naive. Never thought I'd be the one saying that to you. Over all, I give people the benefit of doubt, and start with a positive slate with new people. But, this is way too optimistic on humankind for me.
If it could work, it would be in a group that did not exceed ten people or so.
It'd never work with the current or prior generations. This would have to be something started anew as the already established ideologues would resist change to the grave.
How do you want to do that? You do not only need to get rid of established ideologies, also of inherent tendencies in people.
I'm pretty sure most of these are taught, not inherent. This could be quickly proven with a very simple experiment.
-
You don't think manipulation, greed, and hunger for power are natural consequences of our brain and biology being set up the way it is?
What simple experiment can disprove the hundreds of double-blind studies separating nature from nurture?
-
You don't think manipulation, greed, and hunger for power are natural consequences of our brain and biology being set up the way it is?
What simple experiment can disprove the hundreds of double-blind studies separating nature from nurture?
manipulation
I think the social constructs we immerse our children in take this to the extreme in their minds. I do not think it is natural for our society to use manipulative behavior quite so much.
greed
No. The greedy will forever abuse those who are not. I don't pretend this is not a part of the human condition.
hunger for power
This is another iffy one. Pretty sure this is made a bajillion times worse by the shit society we pretend is invaluable. Celebrating single motherhood/fatherhood as if it were something to aspire to, pressing "the issues" like idiotic first world problems while hundreds of thousands starve annually in a single nation, and ignoring the obvious schemes of the oligarch which will eventually send many of our children to a pointless death.
Circumsision and corporal punishment are still perfectly acceptable behavior in first world countries. Public schools are basically propaganda hubs disguised as places of learning. I could bitch about this stuff all day. Its no wonder children are shell shocked, then often grow up to be mean spirited or power hungry adults.
I mention children more than once because they'd be the only hope of reversing a lot of this damage. Prior generations are too far gone.
-
My career is to increase the socioemotional health of families through play (best job in the world!). I work with dads who are the primary caretakers. Grantedly, in our society, when dads stay at home, it is because they are clearly the best choice and so do better than average. Many moms stay at home because it is the expectation of society. That being clearly understood statistically, these dads are are really great.
These arguments that one gender is sentenced at conception for a specific role is so friggin ridiculous; . It has caused so much angst. Think of the people who have been raised by someone assigned to child rearing based on gender. How backwards is that? I say this as someone who was born a woman and who has always sought nurturing opportunities. I raised five children from birth and seven overall. I am in a field that is child focused. But my life is not for every woman and is not to be denied to any men.
It is an anachronism to assign roles based on gender. That said, every child deserves a nurturing parent.
-
My career is to increase the socioemotional health of families through play (best job in the world!). I work with dads who are the primary caretakers. Grantedly, in our society, when dads stay at home, it is because they are clearly the best choice and so do better than average. Many moms stay at home because it is the expectation of society. That being clearly understood statistically, these dads are are really great.
These arguments that one gender is sentenced at conception for a specific role is so friggin ridiculous; . It has caused so much angst. Think of the people who have been raised by someone assigned to child rearing based on gender. How backwards is that? I say this as someone who was born a woman and who has always sought nurturing opportunities. I raised five children from birth and seven overall. I am in a field that is child focused. But my life is not for every woman and is not to be denied to any men.
It is an anachronism to assign roles based on gender. That said, every child deserves a nurturing parent.
You have my thanks for doing that kind of work. I can really appreciate that you understand the importance of a healthy upbringing for children. Its been my opinion for a while that this is the pillar that humanity rests on. Everything depends on it.
I also like that you recognize the strengths of the individual, disregarding the wedding tackle. It is true that women and men are generally different, but that's true of every individual as well.
Good post. :thumbup:
-
I just quit my job. I love early intervention, but the drama was too much. Actually, the politics were too much. I had idiots who did not know how to do my ob telling how to do it - me, a proud ODD.
I am now switching to dementia, and I bet I will love this too.The crazier, the better. But I plan to return to helping families of young children within a year.
They actually called the police on me! The police arrived, and within minutes were protecting me from the crazy admins! It was all kind of alien. maybe I will post the story.
-
Yes, I fear it's what you meant, which is the problem. You are basically advocating fighting everything at once.
I am indeed. The mere act of unifying would actually make a lot of the "everything" people would be fighting a non-issue, though. I'm not saying everyone has to be the same, but to create a united front of social justice and civil rights. I say this because we actually are all fighting the same thing, but are being manipulated into fighting one another.
It might work if there only were a select few uncomplicated issues to worry about. *Might work*.
In reality, it's not going to happen because the issues are complex, diverse and frequently contrary to each other.
-
I just quit my job. I love early intervention, but the drama was too much. Actually, the politics were too much. I had idiots who did not know how to do my ob telling how to do it - me, a proud ODD.
I am now switching to dementia, and I bet I will love this too.The crazier, the better. But I plan to return to helping families of young children within a year.
They actually called the police on me! The police arrived, and within minutes were protecting me from the crazy admins! It was all kind of alien. maybe I will post the story.
Could we get the police report too? along with the OTHER side of the story?
-
Could we get the police report too? along with the OTHER side of the story?
Sure, Pappy. There's always more than one perspective. :apondering:
-
Could we get the police report too? along with the OTHER side of the story?
Sure, Pappy. There's always more than one perspective. :apondering:
Pappy, I just got back from seeing my old colleagues. I still have not seen the police report, but of the two who called the police - the one who was manager of my department was replaced. No one knew what happened to the other. She was higher in the hierarchy and based in a different building.
I feel she carried greater responsibility, but this is a place that throws subordinates under the bus.
-
Pappy, I just got back from seeing my old colleagues. I still have not seen the police report, but of the two who called the police - the one who was manager of my department was replaced. No one knew what happened to the other. She was higher in the hierarchy and based in a different building.
I feel she carried greater responsibility, but this is a place that throws subordinates under the bus.
I've worked at places like that. The professional racing industry is pretty damn cutthroat.
-
I've worked at places like that. The professional racing industry is pretty damn cutthroat.
Not a shocker for people who are competitors. What did/do you do in this industry?
I working in a highly collaborative "helping" profession, and this administration was simply unexpected. The police officer suggested I go to the local employment commission, who suggested I file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (feds). I can share their perspective once they process it. They are the gatekeepers for disability lawsuits.
-
I've worked at places like that. The professional racing industry is pretty damn cutthroat.
Not a shocker for people who are competitors. What did/do you do in this industry?
CNC Prototype machining, welding, fabrication and R&D work. I worked directly with the crew chiefs and engineers to design new parts for our race cars.
-
CNC Prototype machining, welding, fabrication and R&D work. I worked directly with the crew chiefs and engineers to design new parts for our race cars.
I hadn't heard of CNC Prototype machining so I googled around and found http://americanmachinist.com/features/machinists-nascar (http://americanmachinist.com/features/machinists-nascar). While different teams may be cutthroat with each other, within your team, you all have gotta be like a well oiled machine. I've seen how pit teams are like dancers to get max efficiency. You have to be artistic and visionary as well as efficient. It sounds like a great job!
-
While different teams may be cutthroat with each other, within your team, you all have gotta be like a well oiled machine.
That's the theory at least. In reality it doesn't work like that. Everyone wants to be the hero and in order to stand above the rest, it's easier to throw your co-workers under the bus.
-
Hopefully it's a high-tech bus at least. :orly:
-
:laugh:
-
Hopefully it's a high-tech bus at least. :orly:
Funny enough, we had one of those...
(http://www.pickupslimited.com/Links/Main/Recent/JohnForce/jf06.jpg)
-
Ooh, I love it. +
-
Yes, I fear it's what you meant, which is the problem. You are basically advocating fighting everything at once.
I am indeed. The mere act of unifying would actually make a lot of the "everything" people would be fighting a non-issue, though. I'm not saying everyone has to be the same, but to create a united front of social justice and civil rights. I say this because we actually are all fighting the same thing, but are being manipulated into fighting one another.
It might work if there only were a select few uncomplicated issues to worry about. *Might work*.
In reality, it's not going to happen because the issues are complex, diverse and frequently contrary to each other.
Contrary because people want them to be. COUGHallthewhilescreamingforequalityCOUGH
-
No, contrary because they're *contrary*.
If you try to do everything at once you'll end up failing with everything.
-
No, contrary because they're *contrary*.
If you try to do everything at once you'll end up failing with everything.
I disagree. Men's issues and women's issues are not contrary. I am sick of seeing them both trying to glean special treatment for themselves on the majority, when it would be far simpler and less divisive to cooperate.
-
No, contrary because they're *contrary*.
If you try to do everything at once you'll end up failing with everything.
I disagree. Men's issues and women's issues are not contrary. I am sick of seeing them both trying to glean special treatment for themselves on the majority, when it would be far simpler and less divisive to cooperate.
Rage speaks wisely: Men & women's issues are two sides of the same coin. I know that NTs identify heavily with their gender. I am surprised when we do. There are so many issues that can tear people apart and so many that can bring us together. I have never understood why gender was one of these. We all have borthers/sisters, mothers/fathers, grand mothers/grand fathers, friends and lovers. Why do we not understand gender differences/and similarities?
-
Actually Rage speaks out his ass, but I'm sort of tired of this discussion not going anywhere. You guys carry on, I'll be an opinionated bastard in some other thread for a while. :P
-
Actually Rage speaks out his ass, but I'm sort of tired of this discussion not going anywhere. You guys carry on, I'll be an opinionated bastard in some other thread for a while. :P
-
WTF is that?
-
It's a baby picture of Rage. He was bad-ass from the very day he was born on. Even before that day, he ruled the world as he knew it.
-
It's a baby picture of Rage. He was bad-ass from the very day he was born on. Even before that day, he ruled the world as he knew it.
:laugh:
-
WTF is that?
We forgotten to mention that in Rage's member clause that if he dies that he gets unlimited regeneration for approximately 4 centuries.
-
But the regeneration went wrong?
-
But the regeneration went wrong?
Yeah.. because that image he showed us looks like a younger Peter Capaldi.
-
WTF is that?
Its the discussion going places for others.
-
Doesn't make any sense to me. :dunno:
-
Doesn't make any sense to me. :dunno:
Yes, O-man. I know.
-
Do you imply that the image means something to someone else here than you?
-
Do you imply that the image means something to someone else here than you?
My tapeworm and I, yes.
-
It means something to me. If I had to spell it out (which takes away from the point because everyone's interpretation would be slightly different) it would be some combination of "Out of the mouths of babes" (ie sometimes children have surprising wisdom) and Rage being a self-styled badass.
-
LOL.
-
I guess I just missed its finer points.
-
Everything I say is a finer point. :green:
-
That's deep.
-
Maybe a lot of us girls are already doing it and you just haven't noticed because we don't broadcast it all over the place. :zoinks:
If I called myself a feminist on this place I'd have idiots breathing down my neck about whether I was a social justice responsibility-denying turd. It's starting to sound like a circle jerk. The word has lost its clout. But I believe in equality for all genders, including the ones that aren't defined by penises or vaginas.
I think we are all equal. I don't care to judge on gender, race, nationality or whatever.
-
Maybe a lot of us girls are already doing it and you just haven't noticed because we don't broadcast it all over the place. :zoinks:
If I called myself a feminist on this place I'd have idiots breathing down my neck about whether I was a social justice responsibility-denying turd. It's starting to sound like a circle jerk. The word has lost its clout. But I believe in equality for all genders, including the ones that aren't defined by penises or vaginas.
I think we are all equal. I don't care to judge on gender, race, nationality or whatever.
Me too, and that's why feminism needs to change or be replaced. Biggest recent feminist effort was Emma Watson speaking at the UN as a PR stunt for feminism as a whole.
What was the name of her speech? Anyone know? :zoinks:
-
Yeah, thought so. Its dead, and soon to be replaced by an ideal more fitting the times. I don't know why so many find that difficult to accept.
-
I remember the speech. Didn't realise it had to have a name to be remembered.
-
I remember the speech. Didn't realise it had to have a name to be remembered.
Duh! Titles and looks are more important than content. :tard:
-
Maybe a lot of us girls are already doing it and you just haven't noticed because we don't broadcast it all over the place. :zoinks:
If I called myself a feminist on this place I'd have idiots breathing down my neck about whether I was a social justice responsibility-denying turd. It's starting to sound like a circle jerk. The word has lost its clout. But I believe in equality for all genders, including the ones that aren't defined by penises or vaginas.
I think we are all equal. I don't care to judge on gender, race, nationality or whatever.
Me too, and that's why feminism needs to change or be replaced. Biggest recent feminist effort was Emma Watson speaking at the UN as a PR stunt for feminism as a whole.
What was the name of her speech? Anyone know? :zoinks:
Agreed and for exactly the same reasons. But hey you know my thoughts.
-
I remember the speech. Didn't realise it had to have a name to be remembered.
Duh! Titles and looks are more important than content. :tard:
The name and content were intimately connected, actually. :facepalm2:
-
I remember the speech. Didn't realise it had to have a name to be remembered.
Duh! Titles and looks are more important than content. :tard:
For some.
-
I remember the speech. Didn't realise it had to have a name to be remembered.
Duh! Titles and looks are more important than content. :tard:
For some.
:laugh:
-
I remember the speech. Didn't realise it had to have a name to be remembered.
Duh! Titles and looks are more important than content. :tard:
The name and content were intimately connected, actually. :facepalm2:
I suck at remembering titles. Content and gist of books and articles are what I remember.
-
I remember the speech. Didn't realise it had to have a name to be remembered.
Duh! Titles and looks are more important than content. :tard:
The name and content were intimately connected, actually. :facepalm2:
I suck at remembering titles. Content and gist of books and articles are what I remember.
The title of the speech, was "He for She". The title pretty much sums up the philosophy behind it, and I am sure you can guess why I was pretty exasperated with what she had to say.
-
Because you can't stand it when people express opinions you disagree with? :P
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Sure does to me. ;)
Course. That's how it always has to be with these ideologues, though. There always has to be a superior and lesser, and in the case of the "new" feminism men are supposed to be lesser. Every single campaign is undergone with the goal of moving women to the forefront and standing on the backs of men.
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
-
Support is easy if you only have to support those whose opinions you agree with.
-
Mykeru's latest video on the subject.
Feminist Hypocrisy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgU2LEPdpMc#ws)
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
What exactly is my way? Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.
Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.
Everyone has emotions and expresses them differently. If as an 18 year old girl she found her 18 year old male peers did not she their emotions like her and her 18 year old female peers.....so what?
I do take issue with her calling this a problem in the same way it would be a problem if an 18 year old had issue in the way 18 year old girls expressed emotion and cited it as a social problem.
Of course were this to happen that boy would likely be criticised for being ignorant and sexist and females rightness express emotion however the Hell they wanted would be the battlers.
But when Emma does it she gets a standing ovation and is seen as sensitive to male needs.
See the problem?
-
Mykeru's latest video on the subject.
Feminist Hypocrisy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgU2LEPdpMc#ws)
There's no way I'll spend 24 minutes watching this. Sorry.
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
What exactly is my way? Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.
Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.
Yet you imply something else, above.
Everyone has emotions and expresses them differently. If as an 18 year old girl she found her 18 year old male peers did not she their emotions like her and her 18 year old female peers.....so what?
I do take issue with her calling this a problem in the same way it would be a problem if an 18 year old had issue in the way 18 year old girls expressed emotion and cited it as a social problem.
Of course were this to happen that boy would likely be criticised for being ignorant and sexist and females rightness express emotion however the Hell they wanted would be the battlers.
But when Emma does it she gets a standing ovation and is seen as sensitive to male needs.
See the problem?
No, I don't. You're basing your argument on a strawman.
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
-
Mykeru's latest video on the subject.
Feminist Hypocrisy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgU2LEPdpMc#ws)
There's no way I'll spend 24 minutes watching this. Sorry.
Mykeru's videos are worth the time.
-
They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.
-
They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.
:facepalm2: This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it. :orly:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13 (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13)
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
What exactly is my way? Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.
Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.
Yet you imply something else, above.
I would not have thought so
-
They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.
:facepalm2: This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it. :orly:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13 (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13)
WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.
Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense. I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.
I haven't heard this UN speech but I think the idea that men don't have emotions because they don't show them is bull. There's no need for everybody to be as emotionally demonstrative and emotionally labile as a stereotypical teenage girl.
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
What exactly is my way? Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.
Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.
Yet you imply something else, above.
I would not have thought so
:-\
That's how it reads.
-
WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.
Me too. Posting a video is a bit like letting someone else do all the arguing.
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
What exactly is my way? Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.
Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.
Yet you imply something else, above.
I would not have thought so
:-\
That's how it reads.
What do you believe was implied?
-
They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.
:facepalm2: This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it. :orly:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13 (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13)
WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.
Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense. I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.
I haven't heard this UN speech but I think the idea that men don't have emotions because they don't show them is bull. There's no need for everybody to be as emotionally demonstrative and emotionally labile as a stereotypical teenage girl.
I watched the first 12 minutes of it, just to be a contrarian. Mykeru didn't back up a single argument in those 12 minutes with provable facts. He seems to follow the Bill Maher school of debate and layer his bare assertions with sarcasm and occasional clever-sounding insults as "proof". Several of his arguments are ones that I've seen cited, with proof, elsewhere on I2, but Mykeru doesn't prove anything himself.
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
I don't support blatant lying.
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
-
They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.
:facepalm2: This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it. :orly:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13 (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13)
WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts? I just hate videos.
Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense. I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.
I haven't heard this UN speech but I think the idea that men don't have emotions because they don't show them is bull. There's no need for everybody to be as emotionally demonstrative and emotionally labile as a stereotypical teenage girl.
The speech was basically a bunch of pandering and rhetoric, just to let you know. She would start saying things that sounded nice to make you think "OH yes I agree *nods head*" then skillfully insert some agenda driven bullshit. Over and over.
Its exactly the same thing politicians do.
-
They need transcripts. I would read a transcript.
:facepalm2: This isn't Atheism+, perhaps you should ask them to transcribe it. :orly:
http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13 (http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13)
WTF does Atheism+ have to do with transcripts?
Inside joke, I guess you didn't get it. When Atheism+ started out, one of their slacktivist projects was to transcribe videos for the hearing impaired. They gave up on that project after a year of getting next to nothing done.
Just for you I watched the first two minutes of it. FWIW I'd never heard the viewpoint that extreme feminism was supposed to benefit men before the last few days on here. On the surface it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, any more than trickle-down economics makes sense.
Well, of course it doesn't make sense to the non-believer. Militant feminism, like Christianity, does a lot of preaching to the choir.
I suppose, rather than deliberate hypocrisy, it's an attempt to encourage collaboration instead of this endless tedious men-vs-women attitude as if it were a zero-sum game where everybody had to scrabble desperately for what scraps they could grab.
There are some zero-sum games within gender politics. This version of feminism just wants to be on the winning side of all of them.
-
I watched the first 12 minutes of it, just to be a contrarian. Mykeru didn't back up a single argument in those 12 minutes with provable facts. He seems to follow the Bill Maher school of debate and layer his bare assertions with sarcasm and occasional clever-sounding insults as "proof". Several of his arguments are ones that I've seen cited, with proof, elsewhere on I2, but Mykeru doesn't prove anything himself.
I don't think his intent was to provide proof for his arguments, rather to simply to lay out the argument and let the listener decide for themselves.
-
I watched the first 12 minutes of it, just to be a contrarian. Mykeru didn't back up a single argument in those 12 minutes with provable facts. He seems to follow the Bill Maher school of debate and layer his bare assertions with sarcasm and occasional clever-sounding insults as "proof". Several of his arguments are ones that I've seen cited, with proof, elsewhere on I2, but Mykeru doesn't prove anything himself.
I don't think his intent was to provide proof for his arguments, rather to simply to lay out the argument and let the listener decide for themselves.
That's possible. :dunno: I don't know much about Mykeru.
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
What exactly is my way? Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.
Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.
Yet you imply something else, above.
I would not have thought so
:-\
That's how it reads.
What do you believe was implied?
You basically interpret what she was saying (the part in bold) and attack that.
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
They lie when they quote the dictionary?
-
Actually, what really amused me is she did a token effort, saying her male friends, once they turned 18, could not express emotion when they were upset (which sounded suspiciously like they simply did not show emotions LIKE HER and in a way that she did), and how men suffer from high incidence of Depression and suicide....and with this token "reach out" to male concerns....went on to say that to make things better for them they should support women.
FUCK THAT!
WEFORWE ? How about we all support each other? Doesn't THAT sound like equality?
Because you know her, and her male friends, and that's how you know what she actually meant? Support each other is fine, I guess, for as long as everyone does it your way. ::)
What exactly is my way? Interesting retort but it kind of misses the point entirely, doesn't it? HEFORSHE is necessarily males supporting females not requiring females supporting males. Like the support from males will through osmosis derive benefits to their well being.
Similarly I do not pretend to know anyone else's emotional capabilities or limitations or expression, nor do I have to in order to have made the statement I did.
Yet you imply something else, above.
I would not have thought so
:-\
That's how it reads.
What do you believe was implied?
You basically interpret what she was saying (the part in bold) and attack that.
Oh, you mean the bit prefaced with "sounded suspiciously like"? Because it DID sound like that was going on. Was it going on? No idea. It just sounded suspiciously like that.
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
They lie when they quote the dictionary?
I'm afraid so. Nobody thinks that defines the ideology any more. Not really, anyway. They may even lie to themselves and rationalize their closely held belief, but they are still lying. ;)
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
They lie when they quote the dictionary?
I'm afraid so. Nobody thinks that defines the ideology any more. Not really, anyway. They may even lie to themselves and rationalize their closely held belief, but they are still lying. ;)
So I'm lying now?
feminism
/ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
They lie when they quote the dictionary?
I'm afraid so. Nobody thinks that defines the ideology any more. Not really, anyway. They may even lie to themselves and rationalize their closely held belief, but they are still lying. ;)
So I'm lying now?
feminism
/ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More
Yes of course. That tired old tactic of quoting a written statement in order to justify the actions of unthinking ideologue. Its much the same with Christians and their idiotic habit of quoting bible verses. Often, they don't even understand what the verse was meant to mean. :LOL:
-
To be fair were Feminism on a practical level simply Humanism (equality of the genders), then there would be no issue.
In any practical reading, there is huge differences in practical application and simplified theory.
Many Feminists will say "
the dictionary says "x" and that is all I believe in."
I say "Great, you are a Humanist like me. I don't believe in Patriarchy or Feminist Theory either"
"No...I believe in that too."
"Then it is not JUST equality of genders"
-
Exactly, but this kind of rabid idealism is never so forthcoming.
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
They lie when they quote the dictionary?
I'm afraid so. Nobody thinks that defines the ideology any more. Not really, anyway. They may even lie to themselves and rationalize their closely held belief, but they are still lying. ;)
So I'm lying now?
feminism
/ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More
Yes of course. That tired old tactic of quoting a written statement in order to justify the actions of unthinking ideologue. Its much the same with Christians and their idiotic habit of quoting bible verses. Often, they don't even understand what the verse was meant to mean. :LOL:
Actually, the above is just quoting an online dictionary to make a point. Hardly the same as quoting a Bible verse, IMHO. Can you tell the difference?
-
To be fair were Feminism on a practical level simply Humanism (equality of the genders), then there would be no issue.
In any practical reading, there is huge differences in practical application and simplified theory.
Many Feminists will say "
the dictionary says "x" and that is all I believe in."
I say "Great, you are a Humanist like me. I don't believe in Patriarchy or Feminist Theory either"
"No...I believe in that too."
"Then it is not JUST equality of genders"
Huh?
I mean really. The above doesn't compute for me.
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
They lie when they quote the dictionary?
I'm afraid so. Nobody thinks that defines the ideology any more. Not really, anyway. They may even lie to themselves and rationalize their closely held belief, but they are still lying. ;)
So I'm lying now?
feminism
/ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More
Yes of course. That tired old tactic of quoting a written statement in order to justify the actions of unthinking ideologue. Its much the same with Christians and their idiotic habit of quoting bible verses. Often, they don't even understand what the verse was meant to mean. :LOL:
Actually, the above is just quoting an online dictionary to make a point. Hardly the same as quoting a Bible verse, IMHO. Can you tell the difference?
That is exactly what religious zealots do though. They quote their favorite tomes in order to "make a point", often without having a full understanding of what the book says.
I'm not trying to be condescending here, that's just what I observe people doing. And often. I used to constantly do it myself. There's nothing wrong with quoting the material of a professional to support a claim you've made, O-man. There is a problem though, when a person does so and expects it to be the end all.
Some empathy and common sense is required, no? Say we were talking about a proven phenomenon, like a like that never reaches zero. One could illustrate the asymptote, right? They could even make a couple of little charts before drawing the line, showing several test points and the algebra required to get them.
Now lets switch over to feminism, and the definition of it in the dictionary. Here is the quote:
feminism
/ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More
On the ground of the equality of the sexes, it says. Hmm. Women's liberation, it says. Interesting.
Now lets go ahead and look at the actions of feminism say, over the last fifteen years. Can you name one thing the establishment of feminism has done to this end, that does not involve bashing men and their identity? I don't believe the dictionary definition includes pulling males down, but empowering women. If the dictionary definition of feminism actually defines it, then finding me an example of this should be a walk in the park, sir.
I'll wait. ;)
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
-
You want me to do all your work for you? :P
-
You want me to do all your work for you? :P
I see. That's unfortunate, Pyraxis. I can clearly see that the switch has already been flipped in this little exchange. Oh well. :dunno:
-
No, I'm just busy as hell tonight, and I was destressing here instead of getting into the argument in depth. What happened to "I'll wait"?
-
No, I'm just busy as hell tonight, and I was destressing here instead of getting into the argument in depth. What happened to "I'll wait"?
I'm still waiting. :apondering:
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
:LMAO:
-
This is why I just tell feminist flat out to shut the fuck up and then walk away when they start quoting the dictionary when I ask them what they thing feminism is.
So this is where supporting each other ends? Weak, Rage, weak.
Bad form, I know, replying to your own post, but seeing I mixed your post and Al's, I feel I have to point out my error.
I now realise no support was intended on your part.
Correct. :LOL:
Not that I am against being supportive, but just as I wouldn't support someone's decision to steal my wallet, I won't support ideologues doing one thing and calling it another.
Its called lying, you see.
They lie when they quote the dictionary?
I'm afraid so. Nobody thinks that defines the ideology any more. Not really, anyway. They may even lie to themselves and rationalize their closely held belief, but they are still lying. ;)
So I'm lying now?
feminism
/ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More
Yes of course. That tired old tactic of quoting a written statement in order to justify the actions of unthinking ideologue. Its much the same with Christians and their idiotic habit of quoting bible verses. Often, they don't even understand what the verse was meant to mean. :LOL:
Actually, the above is just quoting an online dictionary to make a point. Hardly the same as quoting a Bible verse, IMHO. Can you tell the difference?
That is exactly what religious zealots do though. They quote their favorite tomes in order to "make a point", often without having a full understanding of what the book says.
Agreed and you won't have an argument from me re religious nutjobs. But on the other hand, bibles and such seldom deal with definitions. Dictionaries do. Quite a difference there.
I'm not trying to be condescending here, that's just what I observe people doing. And often. I used to constantly do it myself. There's nothing wrong with quoting the material of a professional to support a claim you've made, O-man. There is a problem though, when a person does so and expects it to be the end all.
An argument about feminism does not necessarily equal an argument about the definition of feminism as listed in a dictionary. Not sure what you're trying to say here.
Some empathy and common sense is required, no? Say we were talking about a proven phenomenon, like a like that never reaches zero. One could illustrate the asymptote, right? They could even make a couple of little charts before drawing the line, showing several test points and the algebra required to get them.
Not following you at all. To a casual observer, you might come of as reasonable but knowing we were actually discussing how one lies by quoting a dictionary, I need to ask you a simple question:
WTF are you on about?
Now lets switch over to feminism, and the definition of it in the dictionary. Here is the quote:
feminism
/ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: feminism
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; More
On the ground of the equality of the sexes, it says. Hmm. Women's liberation, it says. Interesting.
This chatty style of yours, producing words without anything new, does anyone actually buy it, mate?
Now lets go ahead and look at the actions of feminism say, over the last fifteen years. Can you name one thing the establishment of feminism has done to this end, that does not involve bashing men and their identity? I don't believe the dictionary definition includes pulling males down, but empowering women. If the dictionary definition of feminism actually defines it, then finding me an example of this should be a walk in the park, sir.
I'll wait. ;)
See, you could simply have asked this directly instead of, um, I don't know what you were trying to achieve up there.
So yes, sure. Here are a few:
How about the fight for the rights of women in Saudi Arabia? This is both a human rights and a feminism issue, and one that is very nearly impossible to fight in situ. There have been a few advances in the last fifteen years, some of which are attributable to feminism. Your government, for example, does very little since they so love the Saudi oil and the money, so it falls to other initiatives to help women there.
There are numerous other such examples all over the globe.
The American Association of University Women (AAUW) has done a lot of work to help women in higher education, from providing funds to legal support and more. They keep doing this and their services are exclusively for women.
There are similar ongoing movements to help women overcome what's sometimes known as the glass ceiling, that is, the problems women face when climbing the corporate ladder. Although I'm sure you'll argue that every woman who advances on the ladder does so at the expense of a man.
There is something called the WISE Campaign in the UK that helps women pursue careers in science and engineering, in fields that were once considered impossible for women to even participate in, much less advance in. Consider the number of female Nobel laureates since the inception of the prize; still, more than a hundred years after the fact, very few women are even in a position to be considered.
The OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) includes what you might label as a feminist initiative within the office for human rights, monitoring gender equality in laws and policies, and encouraging women participation in elections.
The list goes on.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
-
You want me to do all your work for you? :P
I see. That's unfortunate, Pyraxis. I can clearly see that the switch has already been flipped in this little exchange. Oh well. :dunno:
:facepalm:
-
Just saw this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/17/opinion/ghitis-kurdish-womens-rights/index.html?iref=obnetwork (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/17/opinion/ghitis-kurdish-womens-rights/index.html?iref=obnetwork)
Does this drag men down? :P
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Yes. Yes it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw)
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
Indeed.
-
Here is how I see it.
Someone wants to say they are a Feminist. They believe in Equality between the genders and would love no discrimination to ever exist, nor sexism, but barring that, for there to be protections and people to be aware of their rights. No issue. They are what I call "Equity Feminists"
On the other end of the spectrum, you have radical Feminists. They want men to be culled and think they are all abhorrent. No issue with these crazies either.
The ones inbetween I have issue with. The ones who will actually affect any social change and who refuse to recognise any benefit women have over men and refuse to see equality in areas that women are equal to men in and who frame everything on a long line of sexist reasoning based around Patriarchy and Feminist Theory.
They are my concern.
-
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
This would be relevant if the environment of a men's workplace were actually a pure meritocracy, but it's not. Men of certain class and background have a much harder time of it than men of the dominant class. There are a lot of small things over time that add up to a picture of a favored group.
I actually face less discrimination at work as a woman than does my middle eastern coworker. He has a better education than me with a math-intensive degree, but because it's from a middle eastern university it doesn't seem to count. When he tried to negotiate for a higher salary he was told he was going about it the wrong way (I think because of minor cultural differences in approach) and sent away. As a result he's a little more capable than I am in terms of pure skill but several rungs lower on the corporate ladder.
The point is that positive discrimination may not be an ideal solution but the things it combats are no joy either. It's not trying to drag people down, but to compensate artificially for the dragging down that has already been done, day in and day out, by the established system.
-
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
This would be relevant if the environment of a men's workplace were actually a pure meritocracy, but it's not. Men of certain class and background have a much harder time of it than men of the dominant class. There are a lot of small things over time that add up to a picture of a favored group.
I actually face less discrimination at work as a woman than does my middle eastern coworker. He has a better education than me with a math-intensive degree, but because it's from a middle eastern university it doesn't seem to count. When he tried to negotiate for a higher salary he was told he was going about it the wrong way (I think because of minor cultural differences in approach) and sent away. As a result he's a little more capable than I am in terms of pure skill but several rungs lower on the corporate ladder.
The point is that positive discrimination may not be an ideal solution but the things it combats are no joy either. It's not trying to drag people down, but to compensate artificially for the dragging down that has already been done, day in and day out, by the established system.
And we have arrived full circle to the conclusion I have nagged about before, eh? I don't want to be annoying with this, so I apologize ahead of saying it. I just think this needs to be said. Again and again, until people stop pretending it isn't there.
This would be relevant if the environment of a men's workplace were actually a pure meritocracy, but it's not. Men of certain class and background have a much harder time of it than men of the dominant class.
Men of certain class and background have a much harder time of it than men of the dominant class.
men of the dominant class
of the dominant class
>:(
Do you understand what I am trying to illustrate here? Feminism and it's efforts are not addressing the only real and confrontable problem that exists in all this, in the present time. And before Scrap chimes in, Mras are not either.
It is just beyond my understanding why people still target things like "men of the" and such, when the obvious elephant in the room is CLASS. This is not to say that the strange perversion of Marxism that radical feminists and the many differently labeled collectives of the same do not attempt to address class and inequality, they just don't actually do it.
Its much like a really shitty doctor that treats the symptoms of an illness, rather than taking a look at the patient and diagnosing them in order to get at the illness. Indeed, the doctor often makes the illness WORSE rather than cure it with these clumsy actions. Much like all these social programs designed to "equalize" social and economic situations (sounds so nice :P ), the product is dependency and people who learn to be victims rather than independence and empowerment.
ITT: Trying to give people who've fallen into a run of bad luck a bit of money or something isn't the answer. The answer is to help them learn how to see the true enemy and confront them. Help them learn how to get the things they need and want without a finger up their ass every step of the way.
I know a lot of the people who would read a comment like this on the internet love meaningless arguments and would get into semantics with me until the end of time:
"Who is the enemy?"
You know what i'm talking about. Don't bullshit me. :P
-
Agreed and you won't have an argument from me re religious nutjobs. But on the other hand, bibles and such seldom deal with definitions. Dictionaries do. Quite a difference there.
I have to disagree with you there. To the religious nutters, there are many "definitions" of things in the bible.
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
But feminism is about helping marginalized men, too! Well... kinda of. It's on their to-do list.
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
But feminism is about helping marginalized men, too! Well... kinda of. It's on their to-do list.
;) Loled.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
-
I never said I was a feminist culture writer, but lately I feel I need to say something. ‘Feminist culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it’s not even culture. It’s whining about things, reporting memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.
It’s young women writing on tumblr with blue/purple hair and collecting non-binary pronouns. Blogging passionately for hours, around the world, to cry about all the things that feminists want them to fear. To find out whether they should feel offended or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. You browse these listless posts, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are writing there.
‘Feminist culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘gender journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of 'justice'.
Lately, I often find myself wondering what I’m even doing here. And I know I’m not alone.
All of us should be better than this. You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face you presents to the rest of the world.
This is what the rest of the world knows about you -- this, and headlines about hundred-thousand-dollar youtube videos or those junkies with the overpriced t-shirts. That’s it. You should absolutely be better than this.
You don’t want to ‘be divisive?’ Who’s being divided, except for people who are okay with an infantilized cultural desert of shitty behavior and people who aren’t? What is there to ‘debate’?
Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame the entire humanity for a few bad apples.
Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Social media websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘Holocaust? Women have it much worse’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent theircommunity. That’s what their community is known for, whether they like it or not.
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to feminism.
That’s not super surprising, actually. While feminism itself were discovered by strange, bright haired pioneers -- they thought social justice would make conventions more fun, or that social media would make for amazing cross-cultural meeting spaces -- the extremist arm of the form sprung up from marketing scams to ‘media critics’. You know, young white women who gets their income from Patreon, who are 'harrassed'.
Suddenly a generation of lost women had marketers with hula hoop earrings whispering in their ears that they were the most important oppressed demographic of all time. Suddenly they started colouring their hair and started making echo chambers that sold the promise of diversity to kids just like them.
By the turn of the millennium those were echo chambers’ only main cultural signposts: No fun. Have issues. Get a Patreon and then a bigger Patreon. Be an outcast. Celebrate that. Block anyone who threatens the narrative. You don’t need cultural references. You don’t need anything but the narrative. Public conversation was led by an echo chamber press whose role was primarily to tell feminists what to buy, to score products competitively against one another, to gleefully fuel the “oppressed gender” atmosphere around creators and companies.
It makes a strange sort of sense that white men of that time would become scapegoats for moral panic, for atrocities committed by "cis white male shitlords" in hyperfeminist America -- not that the men themselves had anything to do with tragedies, but they had an anxiety in common, an amorphous cultural shape that was dark and loud on the outside, hollow on the inside.
Yet in 2014, the narrative has changed. We still think angry young women are the primary demographic for echo chambers -- yet average block-lists from the social justice space have grown massively year on year, with only a few sterling lists enjoying any success.
It’s clear that most of the people who drove feminism in the past have grown up -- either out of feminism, or into more fertile spaces, where small and diverse thoughts can flourish, where communities can quickly spring up around diversity, self- expression and mutual support, rather than upholding the narative. There are new audiences and new thoughts alike there. Traditional “feminism” is sloughing off, culturally and ethically, like the carapace of a bug.
This is hard for people who’ve drank the kool aid about how their identity depends on the aging cultural signposts of a rapidly-evolving, increasingly broad and complex world. It’s hard for them to hear they aren't needed, anymore, that they aren’t the world’s most special-est oppressed demographic, that equality and incusivity is ubiquitous.
We also have to scrutinize, closely, the baffling, stubborn silence of many media outlets amid these scandals, or the fact lots of stubborn, myopic internet comments happen on tumblr and social media sites. This is hard for gender feminists who are being made redundant, both culturally and literally, in their unwillingness to address new audiences or reference points outside of their tumblr- and twitter-echo chambers as their traditional domain falls into the sea around them. Of course it’s hard. It’s probably intense, painful stuff for some young kids, some older women.
But it’s unstoppable. A new generation of egalitarians and humanists are finally aiming to instate a healthy cultural vocabulary, a language of community that was missing in the days of “feminist pride” and special interest groups led by a product-guide approach to conversation with a single presumed demographic.
This means that over just the last few years, the real world focuses on personal experiences and independent people, not approval-hungry obeisance to the demands of a loud minority. It’s not about ‘equality’ anymore. It’s not about telling people what to think, it’s about providing spaces for people to discuss what (and whom) they want.
These straw man ‘social justice’ conversations people have been having are largely the domain of a prior age, when all they did was negotiate feels and Patreon and scraped to be called ‘oppressed’, because they had the same powerlessness complex as their audience had. Now part of an equality feminist job in a creative, human medium is to help curate a creative community and an inclusive culture -- and a lack of commitment to that just looks out-of-step, like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘social justice’ as the flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion.
Men and women alike want interactions about more things, and interaction with more people. We want -- and we are getting, and will keep getting -- tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family tales, ethnographies, abstract art. We will get this, because we’re creating culture now. We are refusing to let anyone feel prohibited from participating.
“Feminist” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Feminists are over. That’s why they’re so mad.
These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-victims, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.
There is what’s past and there is what’s now. There is the role you choose to play in what’s ahead.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Yes. Yes it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw)
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
So quite a Catch 22, according to you. Change anything and we're dragging men down. Keep it the way it is and the situation remains unchanged and women are effectively kept out.
I'm not talking about quotas, I'm talking about equal opportunities. ::)
-
Agreed and you won't have an argument from me re religious nutjobs. But on the other hand, bibles and such seldom deal with definitions. Dictionaries do. Quite a difference there.
I have to disagree with you there. To the religious nutters, there are many "definitions" of things in the bible.
Of course, but those definitions vary wildly depending on the nutter. There are so many interpretations that a serious discussion can be utterly meaningless.
-
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
This would be relevant if the environment of a men's workplace were actually a pure meritocracy, but it's not. Men of certain class and background have a much harder time of it than men of the dominant class. There are a lot of small things over time that add up to a picture of a favored group.
I actually face less discrimination at work as a woman than does my middle eastern coworker. He has a better education than me with a math-intensive degree, but because it's from a middle eastern university it doesn't seem to count. When he tried to negotiate for a higher salary he was told he was going about it the wrong way (I think because of minor cultural differences in approach) and sent away. As a result he's a little more capable than I am in terms of pure skill but several rungs lower on the corporate ladder.
The point is that positive discrimination may not be an ideal solution but the things it combats are no joy either. It's not trying to drag people down, but to compensate artificially for the dragging down that has already been done, day in and day out, by the established system.
And we have arrived full circle to the conclusion I have nagged about before, eh? I don't want to be annoying with this, so I apologize ahead of saying it. I just think this needs to be said. Again and again, until people stop pretending it isn't there.
This would be relevant if the environment of a men's workplace were actually a pure meritocracy, but it's not. Men of certain class and background have a much harder time of it than men of the dominant class.
Men of certain class and background have a much harder time of it than men of the dominant class.
men of the dominant class
of the dominant class
>:(
Do you understand what I am trying to illustrate here? Feminism and it's efforts are not addressing the only real and confrontable problem that exists in all this, in the present time. And before Scrap chimes in, Mras are not either.
It is just beyond my understanding why people still target things like "men of the" and such, when the obvious elephant in the room is CLASS. This is not to say that the strange perversion of Marxism that radical feminists and the many differently labeled collectives of the same do not attempt to address class and inequality, they just don't actually do it.
Its much like a really shitty doctor that treats the symptoms of an illness, rather than taking a look at the patient and diagnosing them in order to get at the illness. Indeed, the doctor often makes the illness WORSE rather than cure it with these clumsy actions. Much like all these social programs designed to "equalize" social and economic situations (sounds so nice :P ), the product is dependency and people who learn to be victims rather than independence and empowerment.
ITT: Trying to give people who've fallen into a run of bad luck a bit of money or something isn't the answer. The answer is to help them learn how to see the true enemy and confront them. Help them learn how to get the things they need and want without a finger up their ass every step of the way.
I know a lot of the people who would read a comment like this on the internet love meaningless arguments and would get into semantics with me until the end of time:
"Who is the enemy?"
You know what i'm talking about. Don't bullshit me. :P
The thing here is, Rage, that you don't seem to have a clue but you act as if you did, which is far worse. You quite obviously have no insight into the academic world (including research here) and so you assume that I'm talking about quotas and such.
I'm not.
And it's not a question of ability. There's no need to avoid a meritocracy, there (should be) no need to force a quota to even things up.
For example, it is a fact that women in the US have earned Masters degrees in biology in about the same numbers as men for decades, proving that there are no significant differences in ability, but fewer earn their PhDs, and the numbers fall even further behind when looking at higher academic positions. Why do you think this is?
There have been studies where random CVs with name changes (male to female and vice versa) but comparable grades and merits were distributed among faculties. The CV identified as a male's would have a significantly higher chance of hire, with a significantly larger initial salary.
Personally, I find this sort of thing hard to ignore.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
-
Oh, and Rage: I notice that you asked me for examples of positive empowerment but have not yet commented my reply.
Take your time.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Yes. Yes it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw)
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
So quite a Catch 22, according to you. Change anything and we're dragging men down. Keep it the way it is and the situation remains unchanged and women are effectively kept out.
I'm not talking about quotas, I'm talking about equal opportunities. ::)
That's not how things are being done, and you know it.
-
Oh, and Rage: I notice that you asked me for examples of positive empowerment but have not yet commented my reply.
Take your time.
I asked you for something and you haven't answered.
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
But feminism is about helping marginalized men, too! Well... kinda of. It's on their to-do list.
Why "but," Dex?
-
I'm not talking about quotas, I'm talking about equal opportunities. ::)
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
That's not the feminism that is out there that annoys everyone though. No one in their right mind is against meritocracy.
The feminism that is pissing everyone off is the feminism that demands forced equality of outcomes regardless of how little effort women have to put in to achieve what men have achieved through hard work.
These feminists are entryists who infiltrate spaces that they did not create, then demand that they be put in charge of everything and if you don't give in to their demands, you are slandered as a harasser of women and a rape apologist.
This modern strain of fashion victimhood hipster feminism actually advocates a Victorian sexual moral ethic where men must treat women as special snowflakes in need of special help and consideration, while getting nothing in return. Women, on the other hand, get all the freedom and access to the best that society has to offer while pawning all the responsibility ans hard work to (mostly) working class men.
-
This video sums up the problem and my position on it pretty well.
Watch from 10:22 to 20:04
WAM-Bam: No Thank You Ma'am (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Dfrm55x14#ws)
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
But feminism is about helping marginalized men, too! Well... kinda of. It's on their to-do list.
Why "but," Dex?
Because challenging this gender role is the responsibility of men alone according to many feminists, even though women and men reinforce it.
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
But feminism is about helping marginalized men, too! Well... kinda of. It's on their to-do list.
Why "but," Dex?
Because challenging this gender role is the responsibility of men alone according to many feminists, even though women and men reinforce it.
So you were responding to "many feminists," not to me, then?
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
But feminism is about helping marginalized men, too! Well... kinda of. It's on their to-do list.
Why "but," Dex?
Because challenging this gender role is the responsibility of men alone according to many feminists, even though women and men reinforce it.
So you were responding to "many feminists," not to me, then?
Yes. I know I have a history of making generalizations.
-
Heard something interesting on NPR today. A woman wrote a play about straight white males after getting feedback from queer and feminist academics at Brown University on what they would describe how the idealized straight white male would act. Apparently the feminists hated the ideal, privelege-checking character because he was too weak and a loser.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/11/17/364760889/in-straight-white-men-a-play-explores-the-reality-of-privilege?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social)
Personally, one of my gender-role peeves is the way men are expected to act. That half the human race is so largely expected to pretend they don't have human emotions is not only shitty and destructive, but also, when you think about it, really just kind of bonkers.
But feminism is about helping marginalized men, too! Well... kinda of. It's on their to-do list.
Why "but," Dex?
Because challenging this gender role is the responsibility of men alone according to many feminists, even though women and men reinforce it.
So you were responding to "many feminists," not to me, then?
Yes. I know I have a history of making generalizations.
Well, next time, just remember I'm special. :P
Honestly, I think one of the productive things that can come not only from debates like this, but also from the original article quoted, is that it *can* make you question what assumptions you're making, what views you have, etc., and it can help you decide if you really want to be operating from that mental set.
The article and play highlight one of the many still-existing broadly-politically-correct crappy mental sets a lot of people carry around. The upshot is that if that play (or even the article about it) does help some people- feminist or not- reconsider their expectations of men and work towards being more fair and kind, that's a good thing. And yes- mindset does help, with things like that. Social norms are actually quite powerful.
-
What?! Listen to an argument and change your mindset? Never!!! Arguments are merely an example to show everyone else you're right.
-
What?! Listen to an argument and change your mindset? Never!!! Arguments are merely an example to show everyone else you're right.
That's a load of crap. Most arguments are about personal growth. Every argument I can think of was about personal growth. Show me examples of arguments that were just about being right.
-
What?! Listen to an argument and change your mindset? Never!!! Arguments are merely an example to show everyone else you're right.
That's a load of crap. Most arguments are about personal growth. Every argument I can think of was about personal growth. Show me examples of arguments that were just about being right.
:asthing:
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Yes. Yes it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw)
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
So quite a Catch 22, according to you. Change anything and we're dragging men down. Keep it the way it is and the situation remains unchanged and women are effectively kept out.
I'm not talking about quotas, I'm talking about equal opportunities. ::)
That's not how things are being done, and you know it.
I know they aren't, which is why I posted. Glad we finally agree there aren't equal opportunities but surprised it took you so long to acknowledge it.
-
Oh, and Rage: I notice that you asked me for examples of positive empowerment but have not yet commented my reply.
Take your time.
I asked you for something and you haven't answered.
You asked me for examples and I provided them.
But it's OK. I realise finding arguments for your cause is not easy.
-
I'm not talking about quotas, I'm talking about equal opportunities. ::)
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
That's not the feminism that is out there that annoys everyone though. No one in their right mind is against meritocracy.
The feminism that is pissing everyone off is the feminism that demands forced equality of outcomes regardless of how little effort women have to put in to achieve what men have achieved through hard work.
These feminists are entryists who infiltrate spaces that they did not create, then demand that they be put in charge of everything and if you don't give in to their demands, you are slandered as a harasser of women and a rape apologist.
This modern strain of fashion victimhood hipster feminism actually advocates a Victorian sexual moral ethic where men must treat women as special snowflakes in need of special help and consideration, while getting nothing in return. Women, on the other hand, get all the freedom and access to the best that society has to offer while pawning all the responsibility ans hard work to (mostly) working class men.
I know, which is why I would have thought that Rage et al would acknowledge this rather than whatever it is that they're trying to do now. Arguing that there isn't discrimination in higher education and science is not easy and I guess it's why Rage is opting for holding his breath and hoping that's a good enough retort.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
OK, then again are you talking about about equal opportunities or equal outcomes. You know they are two very different things and not mutually inclusive (and that the answer is not "Yes")
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Yes. Yes it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw)
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
So quite a Catch 22, according to you. Change anything and we're dragging men down. Keep it the way it is and the situation remains unchanged and women are effectively kept out.
I'm not talking about quotas, I'm talking about equal opportunities. ::)
That's not how things are being done, and you know it.
I know they aren't, which is why I posted. Glad we finally agree there aren't equal opportunities but surprised it took you so long to acknowledge it.
You know I was referring to quotas rather than equal opportunities. There ARE quotas.
-
What?! Listen to an argument and change your mindset? Never!!! Arguments are merely an example to show everyone else you're right.
That's a load of crap. Most arguments are about personal growth. Every argument I can think of was about personal growth. Show me examples of arguments that were just about being right.
Unfortunately, a lot of people I have met in the Autistic community believe they are special snowflakes, and any type of self improvement is trying to normalize themselves.
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
-
Did you check your privilege?? :zoinks:
-
Yep. It's still there. :zoinks:
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
OK, then again are you talking about about equal opportunities or equal outcomes. You know they are two very different things and not mutually inclusive (and that the answer is not "Yes")
Yes. :trollface:
Seriously, I thought I was being clear.
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Yes. Yes it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGQuYvgENw)
Tearing the legal system apart just to get more women in there isn't the only thing gone awry either. The positive discrimination in and of itself is not a good idea, and does not empower women.
"Here little girl. *patpatpat* Lets just get you some help trying to get ahead of those bad old men. Its not your fault you need a boost, I mean you're only a woman."
::)
So quite a Catch 22, according to you. Change anything and we're dragging men down. Keep it the way it is and the situation remains unchanged and women are effectively kept out.
I'm not talking about quotas, I'm talking about equal opportunities. ::)
That's not how things are being done, and you know it.
I know they aren't, which is why I posted. Glad we finally agree there aren't equal opportunities but surprised it took you so long to acknowledge it.
You know I was referring to quotas rather than equal opportunities. There ARE quotas.
Which would also mean that there aren't equal opportunities. But which academic world are you referring to, since the one I was talking about doesn't?
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
OK, then again are you talking about about equal opportunities or equal outcomes. You know they are two very different things and not mutually inclusive (and that the answer is not "Yes")
Yes. :trollface:
Seriously, I thought I was being clear.
No, unfortunately not. Less academics in a field is NOT necessarily discrimination. It may be choice, simply that.
My little brother was a peer to the older sister of someone who went on to become an international star. If the other high schools in the area did not have that much success in generating actor, then it is not that they are doing anything wrong or that there was favoritism or discrimination.
Pretending to have a gripe about unequal outcome would be silly, in this instance.....as it would in Academics
-
What?! Listen to an argument and change your mindset? Never!!! Arguments are merely an example to show everyone else you're right.
That's a load of crap. Most arguments are about personal growth. Every argument I can think of was about personal growth. Show me examples of arguments that were just about being right.
Unfortunately, a lot of people I have met in the Autistic community believe they are special snowflakes, and any type of self improvement is trying to normalize themselves.
And that's why the Autistic community is disliked and associated with lone gunmen instead of with reasonable people- it has its priorities wrong. They all need to learn to just suck it up and bootstrap themselves to where they need to be, and quit with the "advocacy" bullshit. They want special treatment and they should be for EQUALITY. Instead, they are anti-NT- wanting accommodations made that would never be afforded to us NTs, just so they can get jobs they're really just plain less qualified for than we are.
As an NT myself, I can say that I have never oppressed the Autistic community, and frankly I don't think the oppression is real- we've moved past that. Look at all the successful Aspies out there! Clearly, any problems people on the spectrum have are due to lack of grit and effort. They just need to STFU about how unfair things are and put their noses to the grindstone.
-
What?! Listen to an argument and change your mindset? Never!!! Arguments are merely an example to show everyone else you're right.
That's a load of crap. Most arguments are about personal growth. Every argument I can think of was about personal growth. Show me examples of arguments that were just about being right.
Unfortunately, a lot of people I have met in the Autistic community believe they are special snowflakes, and any type of self improvement is trying to normalize themselves.
And that's why the Autistic community is disliked and associated with lone gunmen instead of with reasonable people- it has its priorities wrong. They all need to learn to just suck it up and bootstrap themselves to where they need to be, and quit with the "advocacy" bullshit. They want special treatment and they should be for EQUALITY. Instead, they are anti-NT- wanting accommodations made that would never be afforded to us NTs, just so they can get jobs they're really just plain less qualified for than we are.
As an NT myself, I can say that I have never oppressed the Autistic community, and frankly I don't think the oppression is real- we've moved past that. Look at all the successful Aspies out there! Clearly, any problems people on the spectrum have are due to lack of grit and effort. They just need to STFU about how unfair things are and put their noses to the grindstone.
I know you are being sarcastic, but I do think some initiative would help a lot of us instead of feeling sorry for ourselves all the time.
-
What's this "us"? I don't feel sorry for myself and I don't think most of the people here do.
-
Unfortunately, a lot of people I have met in the Autistic community believe they are special snowflakes, and any type of self improvement is trying to normalize themselves.
Nothing wrong with a positive self-esteem. :M
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
Isn't it always today? :zoinks:
-
What's this "us"? I don't feel sorry for myself and I don't think most of the people here do.
Don't listen to him, Pyraxis. You're a special snowflake and perfect just the way you are. :eyelash:
-
What's this "us"? I don't feel sorry for myself and I don't think most of the people here do.
Deviil's Advocate role here (not a role I like playing...I like opinionated) I think that "us" is used as a bit of a collective term. I think that life is hard and that most on I2 probably get that and few, if any, are special snowflakes here. Wander onto some other online site or in some IRL Aspie groupings and ...yeah....pity parties run supreme.
I do not think you are a special snowflake Py, nor do I think you are a nasty piece of work.
-
I don't have so much experience with IRL aspie groupings. I've heard there are facebook groups, but I am very much not a facebook person.
-
What's this "us"? I don't feel sorry for myself and I don't think most of the people here do.
Deviil's Advocate role here (not a role I like playing...I like opinionated) I think that "us" is used as a bit of a collective term. I think that life is hard and that most on I2 probably get that and few, if any, are special snowflakes here. Wander onto some other online site or in some IRL Aspie groupings and ...yeah....pity parties run supreme.
I do not think you are a special snowflake Py, nor do I think you are a nasty piece of work.
You are correct. Jack, there is nothing wrong with positive affirmations as long as you do not do it excessively. Doing so clouds your perspective of what weaknesses you need to work on.
-
Jack, there is nothing wrong with positive affirmations as long as you do not do it excessively. Doing so clouds your perspective of what weaknesses you need to work on.
Jack is esoteric, with chocolate as her lone weakness. :M
-
I do not think you are a special snowflake Py,
She's beautiful and unique. >:(
-
Jack, there is nothing wrong with positive affirmations as long as you do not do it excessively. Doing so clouds your perspective of what weaknesses you need to work on.
Jack is esoteric, with chocolate as her lone weakness. :M
The bovine appreciates your weakness. :hyke:
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
OK, then again are you talking about about equal opportunities or equal outcomes. You know they are two very different things and not mutually inclusive (and that the answer is not "Yes")
Yes. :trollface:
Seriously, I thought I was being clear.
No, unfortunately not. Less academics in a field is NOT necessarily discrimination. It may be choice, simply that.
My little brother was a peer to the older sister of someone who went on to become an international star. If the other high schools in the area did not have that much success in generating actor, then it is not that they are doing anything wrong or that there was favoritism or discrimination.
Pretending to have a gripe about unequal outcome would be silly, in this instance.....as it would in Academics
Not necessarily discrimination, no, but if the numbers are consistently in favour of men in the higher positions, I'd say there's something fishy going on.
-
What?! Listen to an argument and change your mindset? Never!!! Arguments are merely an example to show everyone else you're right.
That's a load of crap. Most arguments are about personal growth. Every argument I can think of was about personal growth. Show me examples of arguments that were just about being right.
Unfortunately, a lot of people I have met in the Autistic community believe they are special snowflakes, and any type of self improvement is trying to normalize themselves.
And that's why the Autistic community is disliked and associated with lone gunmen instead of with reasonable people- it has its priorities wrong. They all need to learn to just suck it up and bootstrap themselves to where they need to be, and quit with the "advocacy" bullshit. They want special treatment and they should be for EQUALITY. Instead, they are anti-NT- wanting accommodations made that would never be afforded to us NTs, just so they can get jobs they're really just plain less qualified for than we are.
As an NT myself, I can say that I have never oppressed the Autistic community, and frankly I don't think the oppression is real- we've moved past that. Look at all the successful Aspies out there! Clearly, any problems people on the spectrum have are due to lack of grit and effort. They just need to STFU about how unfair things are and put their noses to the grindstone.
Agreed.
-
What's this "us"? I don't feel sorry for myself and I don't think most of the people here do.
I feel sorry for you. :P
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
Isn't it always today? :zoinks:
Yesterday was just another day.
-
You all need to harden the fuck up. :orly:
I miss PPK.
-
Me too
-
You all need to harden the fuck up. :orly:
I miss PPK.
*Showing my soft and sensitive side*
I miss him too.
-
And that's why the Autistic community is disliked and associated with lone gunmen instead of with reasonable people- it has its priorities wrong. They all need to learn to just suck it up and bootstrap themselves to where they need to be, and quit with the "advocacy" bullshit. They want special treatment and they should be for EQUALITY. Instead, they are anti-NT- wanting accommodations made that would never be afforded to us NTs, just so they can get jobs they're really just plain less qualified for than we are.
As an NT myself, I can say that I have never oppressed the Autistic community, and frankly I don't think the oppression is real- we've moved past that. Look at all the successful Aspies out there! Clearly, any problems people on the spectrum have are due to lack of grit and effort. They just need to STFU about how unfair things are and put their noses to the grindstone.
Agreed.
I thought Elle was being sarcastic.
-
Quotas are discrimination. ;)
-
What's this "us"? I don't feel sorry for myself and I don't think most of the people here do.
I feel sorry for you. :P
Aww, you're too kind.
-
And that's why the Autistic community is disliked and associated with lone gunmen instead of with reasonable people- it has its priorities wrong. They all need to learn to just suck it up and bootstrap themselves to where they need to be, and quit with the "advocacy" bullshit. They want special treatment and they should be for EQUALITY. Instead, they are anti-NT- wanting accommodations made that would never be afforded to us NTs, just so they can get jobs they're really just plain less qualified for than we are.
As an NT myself, I can say that I have never oppressed the Autistic community, and frankly I don't think the oppression is real- we've moved past that. Look at all the successful Aspies out there! Clearly, any problems people on the spectrum have are due to lack of grit and effort. They just need to STFU about how unfair things are and put their noses to the grindstone.
Agreed.
I thought Elle was being sarcastic.
I thought perhaps odeon was, as well.
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
Isn't it always today? :zoinks:
Yesterday was just another day.
I'm feeling special yesterday? :dunno:
-
And that's why the Autistic community is disliked and associated with lone gunmen instead of with reasonable people- it has its priorities wrong. They all need to learn to just suck it up and bootstrap themselves to where they need to be, and quit with the "advocacy" bullshit. They want special treatment and they should be for EQUALITY. Instead, they are anti-NT- wanting accommodations made that would never be afforded to us NTs, just so they can get jobs they're really just plain less qualified for than we are.
As an NT myself, I can say that I have never oppressed the Autistic community, and frankly I don't think the oppression is real- we've moved past that. Look at all the successful Aspies out there! Clearly, any problems people on the spectrum have are due to lack of grit and effort. They just need to STFU about how unfair things are and put their noses to the grindstone.
Agreed.
I thought Elle was being sarcastic.
It only occurred to me that she might be after I hit Post. Not that it matters, I still pretty much agree with what she says.
-
And that's why the Autistic community is disliked and associated with lone gunmen instead of with reasonable people- it has its priorities wrong. They all need to learn to just suck it up and bootstrap themselves to where they need to be, and quit with the "advocacy" bullshit. They want special treatment and they should be for EQUALITY. Instead, they are anti-NT- wanting accommodations made that would never be afforded to us NTs, just so they can get jobs they're really just plain less qualified for than we are.
As an NT myself, I can say that I have never oppressed the Autistic community, and frankly I don't think the oppression is real- we've moved past that. Look at all the successful Aspies out there! Clearly, any problems people on the spectrum have are due to lack of grit and effort. They just need to STFU about how unfair things are and put their noses to the grindstone.
Agreed.
I thought Elle was being sarcastic.
I thought perhaps odeon was, as well.
Not really. I do think that the advocacy bullshit is just that, bullshit. The same goes with this whole oppression thing.
OTOH, the stuff about any problems we might have being due to lack of grit and effort, erm, not really, but by that time, I had decided I'd simply post "agreed" and be provocative about it all.
My real point was that we do need to harden the fuck up, which I said in another post.
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
Isn't it always today? :zoinks:
Yesterday was just another day.
I'm feeling special yesterday? :dunno:
That, too. :zoinks:
-
Quotas are discrimination. ;)
We've moved past that now, mate. You need to harden the fuck up. :zoinks:
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
OK, then again are you talking about about equal opportunities or equal outcomes. You know they are two very different things and not mutually inclusive (and that the answer is not "Yes")
Yes. :trollface:
Seriously, I thought I was being clear.
No, unfortunately not. Less academics in a field is NOT necessarily discrimination. It may be choice, simply that.
My little brother was a peer to the older sister of someone who went on to become an international star. If the other high schools in the area did not have that much success in generating actor, then it is not that they are doing anything wrong or that there was favoritism or discrimination.
Pretending to have a gripe about unequal outcome would be silly, in this instance.....as it would in Academics
Not necessarily discrimination, no, but if the numbers are consistently in favour of men in the higher positions, I'd say there's something fishy going on.
Not at all. There are for example more deaths and injuries in the Workplace for men vs women. In fact 95% are male (IE men are killed or injured doing their work at 1900% higher rate then females).
Is there "something fishy " here too OR is it the females CHOOSE of their own volition not to so the type of work that would make them likely to be a statistic?
If we apply this to academia, it certainly is very possible that it comes down to choice.
I love seeing hardcore Feminist ladies fire up about there not being enough female politicians, I ask them why they personally are not running for office. They always give me choice base excuses.....which I sink their premise with
-
Did I manage to invoke some odd footnote of Dunc's law?
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
Isn't it always today? :zoinks:
Yesterday was just another day.
I'm feeling special yesterday? :dunno:
That, too. :zoinks:
Agree I'm special, or hush up. :zoinks:
-
Quotas are discrimination. ;)
We've moved past that now, mate. You need to harden the fuck up. :zoinks:
You've moved past it. Apparently you're comfortable with discrimination, as long as it adheres to the political narratives of your choice. I tend to lean towards more universal principles.
:CanofWorms: :mischief:
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
OK, then again are you talking about about equal opportunities or equal outcomes. You know they are two very different things and not mutually inclusive (and that the answer is not "Yes")
Yes. :trollface:
Seriously, I thought I was being clear.
No, unfortunately not. Less academics in a field is NOT necessarily discrimination. It may be choice, simply that.
My little brother was a peer to the older sister of someone who went on to become an international star. If the other high schools in the area did not have that much success in generating actor, then it is not that they are doing anything wrong or that there was favoritism or discrimination.
Pretending to have a gripe about unequal outcome would be silly, in this instance.....as it would in Academics
Not necessarily discrimination, no, but if the numbers are consistently in favour of men in the higher positions, I'd say there's something fishy going on.
Not at all. There are for example more deaths and injuries in the Workplace for men vs women. In fact 95% are male (IE men are killed or injured doing their work at 1900% higher rate then females).
Is there "something fishy " here too OR is it the females CHOOSE of their own volition not to so the type of work that would make them likely to be a statistic?
If we apply this to academia, it certainly is very possible that it comes down to choice.
I love seeing hardcore Feminist ladies fire up about there not being enough female politicians, I ask them why they personally are not running for office. They always give me choice base excuses.....which I sink their premise with
Because the causes to occupational deaths statistics are obviously comparable with the number of women in higher positions in academia? I have to say that this one I didn't see coming.
But there are other possible explanations. This one (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-and-race-discrimination-in-academia-starts-even-before-grad-school/), for example.
-
Did I manage to invoke some odd footnote of Dunc's law?
Questioning autie advocacy immediately kills the thread?
-
Quotas are discrimination. ;)
We've moved past that now, mate. You need to harden the fuck up. :zoinks:
You've moved past it. Apparently you're comfortable with discrimination, as long as it adheres to the political narratives of your choice. I tend to lean towards more universal principles.
:CanofWorms: :mischief:
I'm comfortable with quotas? Really? Where did I say that?
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
Isn't it always today? :zoinks:
Yesterday was just another day.
I'm feeling special yesterday? :dunno:
That, too. :zoinks:
Agree I'm special, or hush up. :zoinks:
You're a speshul snowflake. Happy now? :zoinks:
-
I can. A quick google search is coming up with a lot of initiatives calling for things like affordable child care, paid parental leave, and equal wages for equal work.
Center for American Progress, Women's Initiative (https://www.americanprogress.org/about/wi-about/)
Massachusetts Women in the Workplace Initiative (http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2014/0312-governor-launches-women-in-workplace-initiative.html)
Obama Administration fact sheet on women's and family initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/work-flex-kit/get-started/factsheet)
National Committee on Pay Equity (http://www.pay-equity.org/cando.html)
And you're completely sure that none of these drag men down, rather than empower women?
If you, for example, fight for equality in research or higher academic positions, more women will probably mean fewer men unless the total number of positions is increased, which is unlikely. Is this dragging men down?
Out out interest are we talking equality of opportunity or equality of outcome because you and I know they are not mutually inclusive nor does necessarily even logically follow.
I am weak in mechanics and trigonometry. You could put me in highly intensive specialised tutoring and I would be none the wiser.
Equal opportunity. Meritocracy. The best person for the job and all that. Double blind if need be.
We have that now though. Woman can be or do what they want AND have the protection under the law against discrimination.
With this mind, do women tend to choose similar jobs to men now? No.
Why not? Because women in general prioritise work/life balance off against higher wages. Where they want to though, they can. My daughter's best friend is goingbto be a carpenter, whilst other female peers have much more gender typical aspirations.
I support whatever my daughter wishes to be.
I was talking about academics, in this case, which is kind of different, around here at least.
OK, then again are you talking about about equal opportunities or equal outcomes. You know they are two very different things and not mutually inclusive (and that the answer is not "Yes")
Yes. :trollface:
Seriously, I thought I was being clear.
No, unfortunately not. Less academics in a field is NOT necessarily discrimination. It may be choice, simply that.
My little brother was a peer to the older sister of someone who went on to become an international star. If the other high schools in the area did not have that much success in generating actor, then it is not that they are doing anything wrong or that there was favoritism or discrimination.
Pretending to have a gripe about unequal outcome would be silly, in this instance.....as it would in Academics
Not necessarily discrimination, no, but if the numbers are consistently in favour of men in the higher positions, I'd say there's something fishy going on.
Not at all. There are for example more deaths and injuries in the Workplace for men vs women. In fact 95% are male (IE men are killed or injured doing their work at 1900% higher rate then females).
Is there "something fishy " here too OR is it the females CHOOSE of their own volition not to so the type of work that would make them likely to be a statistic?
If we apply this to academia, it certainly is very possible that it comes down to choice.
I love seeing hardcore Feminist ladies fire up about there not being enough female politicians, I ask them why they personally are not running for office. They always give me choice base excuses.....which I sink their premise with
Because the causes to occupational deaths statistics are obviously comparable with the number of women in higher positions in academia? I have to say that this one I didn't see coming.
But there are other possible explanations. This one (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-and-race-discrimination-in-academia-starts-even-before-grad-school/), for example.
Yeah, it sounds like drawing a very low bow with this, but it isn't.
The reason of course is we are using it not to compare dangerous jobs and death with academia and the relative sedentary and safe intellectual pursuits we associate it with BUT rather the similarity on the issue that matters, why does one gender not factor as much in academia, why does one factor not factor as much in workplace death and injury.
This is the similarity. The answer for both is the same or similar versions of.
The problem to is that there is a desire to call difference in outcome as discrimination or sexism or what have you.
This is where I personally stand IF you give both genders teh same rights and same opportunities and options and protections against discrimination, then what you are left with is individual choice.
The only way you can stop people making career choices that you do not approve of, is to take away that freedom of choice. "YOU want to be a Psychologist? Too bad we need you to do Hard Science specialisation", "You want to be a hairdresser? No, we are down on numbers in your gender for high rise window washers"
IF you disagree with this, then you need to let go and let men and women chose whatever it is that they want.
I would have loved to have been a lawyer. I think I would have done well. I did not choose this path and regret it. I do not think I would have wanted someone insisting on it though. I prefer the ability as an adult to make the choices for myself.
-
Did I manage to invoke some odd footnote of Dunc's law?
Questioning autie advocacy immediately kills the thread?
Questioning my own past diagnosis. (I think "NT" is an exaggeration, but I'm not far enough along the spectrum to call it anything.)
Also: Fuck, I should have just let the peace reign. I ruined it. XD
-
Quotas are discrimination. ;)
We've moved past that now, mate. You need to harden the fuck up. :zoinks:
You've moved past it. Apparently you're comfortable with discrimination, as long as it adheres to the political narratives of your choice. I tend to lean towards more universal principles.
:CanofWorms: :mischief:
I'm comfortable with quotas? Really? Where did I say that?
Then there is nothing to argue about, is there? :green:
-
I have to say I'm feeling very special today. :zoinks:
Just today?
Isn't it always today? :zoinks:
Yesterday was just another day.
I'm feeling special yesterday? :dunno:
That, too. :zoinks:
Agree I'm special, or hush up. :zoinks:
You're a speshul snowflake. Happy now? :zoinks:
Yep. :zoinks:
-
bump. This is pretty funny.
They Live: Feminist Version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFAZ18Aex5c#ws)